GB 1227 
,03 H7 




Glass 
BookJZS 



I 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/ohiovalleyfloodoOOhort 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Dibkctor 

Wateb-Sttpply Paper 334 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD 
OF MARCH- APRIL, 1913 

(INCLUDING COMPAfilSONS WITH SOME EARLIEE FLOODS) 



BY 



A. H. HORTON and H. J. JACKSON 




WASHINGTON 

QOVERNJdENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1913 



MMII MIWI— — M m i MM. I l.M« 



lOTBBPSSl 



/ 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director 



Water -Supply Paper 334 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD 
OF MARCH- APRIL, 1913 ^X ' 

(INCLUDING COMPARISONS WITH SOME EARLIER FLOODS) 



BY 



A. H. HORTON and H. J. JACKSON 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1913 



'h 






n. OF D. 
OCT 17 1913 



\ 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction 7 

Scope of report 8 

Accuracy and reliability of data 9 

Acknowledgments 9 

Division of work 9 

Definition of terms 10 

Convenient equivalents 11 

Causes of floods in the Ohio Valley 13 

History of the flood of March-April, 1913 19 

General causes 19 

Precipitation and temperatiu-e 20 

Progress of the flood 23 

Stage and discharge 24 

Flood of March-April, 1907 31 

Causes 31 

Precipitation and temperature 31 

General features 33 

Stage and discharge 34 

Flood of 1884 39 

Causes 39 

Precipitation and temperature 39 

General features 40 

Stage and discharge 42 

Comparison of the floods in the Ohio Valley 43 

Causes 43 

Place of origin 45 

Progress 45 

Record stages : .' 45 

Effects of tributaries 45 

Future floods 46 

Stage and discharge 47 

Damage caused by flood of March-April, 1913 84 

Prevention of damage by floods 87 

Conclusion 91 

Index 93 

3 



TABLES. 



1 . Stages, in feet, of floods above danger line at selected stations on Ohio River. 14 

2. Gage heights, in feet, for floods of Ohio and tributary rivers from 1880 to 1913. 17 

3. Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin, 

March 23-27, 1913 '. . . . 20 

4. Gage height, in feet, at stations on Ohio River for flood of March- April, 1913 . 25 

5. Gage height, in feet, at stations on streams tributary to Ohio River for flood 

of March-April, 1913 26 

6. Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin, 

March 4-14, 1907 31 

7. Gage height, in feet, at stations on Ohio River during flood of March- April, 

1907. 34 

8. Gage height, in feet, at stations on rivers tributary to Ohio River for flood of 

March-April, 1907 36 

9. Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin, 

February 3-14, 1884 41 

10. Gage height, in feet, at stations on Ohio River during flood of 1884 42 

11. Crest stages, in feet, for selected floods and miscellaneous data at stations on 

Ohio River 48 

12. Crest stages, in feet, for selected floods and miscellaneous data at stations-on 

streams tributary to Ohio River 49 

13. Daily gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 

at Cincinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line from 1859 to 1913 . . 52 

14. Daily gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 

at selected stations for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and 
March-April, 1913 66 

15. Summary of flood-flow records of Ohio River at Cincinnati, Ohio, for all 

floods above danger line from 1859 to 1913 75 

16. Summaiy of flood-flow records of Ohio River at Wlieeling, Parkersburg, Cat- 

lettsburg, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Evansville, for floods of 1884, Jan- 
uary, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March-April, 1913 78 

17. Summary of flood-flow records of Ohio River for floods of 1884, January, 1907, 

March- April, 1907, and March-April, 1913, at "Wlieeling, Parkersburg, Cat- 
lettsburg, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Evansville 80 

18. Ratios of total discharge during selected floods at various points on Ohio 

River 82 

19. Estimate of damages in Ohio Valley by flood of March- April, 1913. 85 

4 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Page. 
Plate I. A, Panoramic view of Parkersburg, W. Va., dunng flood of March- 
April, 1913; B, South Main Street, Dayton, Ohio, after flood of 

March-April, 1913 7 

II. A, Second Street, Marietta, Ohio, during flood of March-April, 1913, 
after water had fallen; B, Market Street, Parkersbiu-g, W. Va., dur- 
ing flood of March-April, 1913 20 

III. Map showing drainage area, principal streams, towns, and lines of 

equal rainfall for flood of March-April, 1913 20 

IV. Flood hydrographs for 15 stations on Ohio River during the flood of 

March-April, 1913 24 

V. Flood hydrographs for stations on Ohio River and tributary streams 

during the flood of March-April, 1913 24 

VI. A, Miami Street canal bridge, Dayton, Ohio, after the flood of March- 
April, 1913; B, Post office, Dayton, Ohio, after the flood of March- 
April, 1913 24 

VII. A, High Street, Hamilton, Ohio, at daybreak March 26, 1913; B, 

Same street after the flood 30 

VIII. A, "The island," WheeKng, W. Va., during the flood of March-April, 
1913; B, View looking north on Market Street, ^^Tieehng, W. Va., 
from Baltimore & Ohio Railroad viaduct, during the flood of March- 
April, 1913 ^ 30 

IX. Belpre, Ohio, during the flood of March-April, 1913 31 

X. Flood hydrographs for 15 stations on Ohio River during the flood of 

March-April, 1907 34 

XI. Flood hydrographs for stations on Ohio River and tributary streams 

during the flood of March-April, 1907 34 

XII. Map showing drainage area, principal streams, towns, and lines of 

equal rainfall for flood of 1884 40 

XIII. Flood hydrographs for 7 stations on Ohio River during the flood of 

1884 40 

XIV. Railroad bridge over Musldngum River at Marietta, Ohio, March- 

April, 1913: ^, During the flood; 5, After the flood 86 

XV. A, Fourth Street and Baptist Church, Marietta, Ohio, March 30, 1913; 

B, Post office, Front Street, Marietta, Ohio, March 30, 1913 86 

XVI. A, B, C, High Street bridge over Miami River at Hamilton, Ohio, 

March-April, 1913 86 

XVII. ^4, Rileys Island, Miami River, below Hamilton, OHo, March 26, 
1913; B, High Street, Hamilton, Ohio, duiing flood of March-April, 

1913 86 

XVIII. A, South B Street, Hamilton, Ohio, after the flood of March-April, 
1913; B, Railroad crossing at South Hamilton, Ohio, after the flood 

of March-April, 1913 87 

XIX. Ohio River at Cincinnati, Ohio, April 4, 1913 88 

5 



ILLUSTBATIONS. 

XX. Ohio River at Cincinnati, Ohio, April 4, 1913, looking downstream 

from suspension bridge between Cincinnati and Newport, Ky 88 

XXI. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Raihoad bridge over Miami River at 
Hamilton, Ohio, March 25, 1913: A, Just before failure; B, During 

failure ; C, Immediately after failure 88 

XXII. A, Remains of Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad bridge at 
Hamilton, Ohio; B, Second and Court streets, Hamilton, Ohio, on 
the morning of March 25, 1913 89 



.1. PANORAMIC VIEW OF PARKERSBURG, W. VA., DURING FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

Looking upstream on Ohio River. Little Kanawha River in foreground and extending upstream to the right 




ii. SOUTH MAIN STREET, DAYTON, OHIO, AFTER FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 




pAYT( 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL 1913. 



By A. H. HoRTON and H. J. Jackson. 



INTRODUCTION. 

In no year since 1873 has Ohio River failed, at some point along its 
course, to overflow its banks and flood large areas of adjoining bottom 
lands, and in some years this floodmg has been five times repeated. 
So relatively little precise information is available concerning the 
floods previous to 1873 that their mtensity can not be fairly compared 
with that of later floods, but among the subsequent floods three are 
preeminent — that of February, 1884, that of March-April, 1907, and, 
last and greatest, that of March- April, 1913. 

Problems connected with the improvement, regulation, and use 
of the Ohio and its tributaries have been under consideration for more 
than a century, but none of the numerous philosophic and scientific 
reports that discuss these problems contain any consecutive records 
of discharge, and, largely because of this lack of base data, the 
problems seem little nearer solution now than they were 50 years ago. 
The small amount of progress made is shown by comparing the 
numerous reports on floods published during the last 60 years. The 
discussion that followed the publication of Ellet's notable report ^ in 
1853 and that which followed Leighton's report ^ m 1908 on reservoir' 
control aft"ord a particularly strikmg example. Although more than 
50 years had elapsed between the two reports sufficient data upon 
which to base definite conclusions had not been collected. 

The differences m opinion concerning the treatment of the problem 
of the improvement of the Ohio have been in the past and are now 
due chiefly to attempts to draw conclusions from insufficient data and 
to consider special phases of the subject v/ithout attention to other 
phases. Unless systematic studies of all the various factors which 
enter into the problem are made, the arguments that have been 

' Ellet, Charles, jr., The Slississippi and Ohio rivers: containing plans for the protection of the delta 
from inundation and investigation of the practicability and cost of improving the navigation of the Ohio 
and other rivers by means of reservoirs; Philadelphia, 18.53. The discussion appeared in the Jom-nal of the 
Franklin Institute of Philadelphia between 1853 and 1857. 

2 Leighton, M. O., The relation of water conservation to flood prevention and navigation along Ohio 
River: Inland Waterways Comm., Prel. llept., pp. 451-490, 1908. Discussions appeared in Am. Soc. Civil 
Eng. Trans. (Chittenden, H. M.), vol. 62, pp. 245 et seq.; Eng. News; and other periodicals. 

7 



8 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

carried on during the last half century wUl continue indefinitely to 
occupy the time and attention of everyone interested. 
The data essential to such systematic studies comprise — 

1. Records of stream flow at carefully selected points. 

2. General topographic maps of the entire area. 

3. Detailed maps of areas where possible improvement can be made. 

4. A study of present works for the improvement of the river and 
its tributaries and their effects. 

5. A study of the municipal and other developments along the 
rivers and their effects on regimen. 

Of these the data of greatest immediate importance are records 
of stream flow. The others are of such character that they can be 
readily collected at any time, but the coUection of stream-flow data 
should be started without further delay, for not only are they essential 
in studying past and present conditions and in planning improve- 
ments, but they are also indispensable to the efficient operation of any 
works that may be constructed, and their value will depend largely 
on the length of time over which they extend. Moreover, the 
opportunity for obtaining much valuable information concerning the 
flood of March- April, 1913, wUl soon be lost, and it is manifestly 
unwise to await the recurrence of disaster in order to coUect the 
data necessary to the formulation of plans for flood control. 

Investigations of stream flow are now in progress by the United 
States Geological Survey in many parts of the Ohio River basin, 
and can readily be extended to cover the whole area. 

SCOPE OF REPORT. 

A review of the various published and manuscript reports relating 
to the Ohio and its tributaries shows that disconnected and incom- 
plete records of stage, discharge, and other factors relative to flow 
have been kept at many points in the Ohio River basin. A report 
based on the careful study and analysis of these records supplemented 
by new data would give much mformation in regard to the flow of 
Ohio River during the last 70 years, including, for several points, 
records of the flow continuous for 50 years. In preparation for such a 
report the Geological Survey has, for the last five years, as opportunity 
presented, collected many of the records necessary for the correlation 
and interpretation of back records, but before the report can be 
completed, it will be necessary to analyze thoroughly aU the available 
records and to collect some additional hydrometric data. 

Meanwhile such flood data as can be prepared with the records and 
funds at present available are here published for the convenience of 
the public and particularly of the engineering profession, and to 
emphasize the necessity of immediately starting, on a comprehensive 
scale, the collection of stream-flow data in the Ohio Valley. 



DIVISION OF WORK. 9 

The data given for the recent flood are as complete as it is possible 
to make them at this time, but much more similar information should 
be collected and published. The facts concerning other floods are 
presented primarily for comparison with those concerning the flood 
of 1913, for it is obvious that the problem of flood control can not be 
solved by studying any one flood. 

The report shows, m a limited way, what can and should be done 
in collecting the hydrometric data necessary for a complete report 
upon the floods that continuously menace the Ohio Valley, to the end 
that a definiiie decision may be reached as to the best and most eco- 
nomical means of preventing damage by floods. 

ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF DATA. 

It has not been possible to expend on the preparation of this pre- 
liminary report the same amount of care and study that would be 
necessary in the preparation of a complete and final report, but all 
gage heights have been carefully checked agamst the records from 
which they were obtained, and any discrepancies that may be later 
revealed by close study and investigation of original records will 
probably be comparatively small. Discharge data, in so far as the 
rating curves used in their determmation are concerned, are well 
within the required degree of accuracy. No detailed study of the 
records as published has been made, and no attempt has been made 
to adjust any of the data to even partly eliminate seeming incon- 
sistencies. 

ACKNOAVLEDGMENTS. 

Special acknowledgment is due to the United States Weather 
Bureau for published and advance data on precipitation and floods, 
particularly for rainfall records and most of the gage heights and 
miscellaneous data relating to river stations given in this report, 
and to the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, for published and 
unpublished gage heights at numerous locks and dams and for some 
miscellaneous data derived from reports on river surveys. Data 
obtained from municipal and local authorities in many cities and 
towns, from county and State departments, and from railroad and 
traction companies throughout the Ohio Valley form so large a part 
of this report that it has not been deemed expedient to attempt to 
give individual acloiowledgments throughout the text. All such 
courtesies are, however, here gratefully acknowledged. 

DIVISION OP WORK. 

The field records from which the discharge data were prepared were 
collected under the direction of A. H. Horton, district engineer, 
assisted by R. H. Bolster, W. G. Hoyt, H. J. Jackson, C. T. Bailey, 
Wm. N. O'Nefll, J. C. Dort, and P. S. Monk. 



10 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, I9l3. 

The ratings were prepared by A. H. Horton, district engineer, R. H. 
Bolster, hydraulic engineer, and H. J. Jackson, assistant engineer. 

The computations were made by A. H. Horton and H. J. Jackson, 
assisted by G. C. Stevens, H. D. Padgett, C. L. Batchelder, and M. I. 
Walters. 

The rainfall maps for the floods of 1884 and 1913 were prepared by 
Henry Gannett, geographer. 

The outline and general plan of the report was made by John C. 
Hoyt, under whose direction the studies were made and the completed 
data prepared for publication by A. H. Horton and H. J. Jackson. 

The report was edited by Mrs. B. D. Wood. 

DEFINITION OF TERMS. 

The volume of water flowing m a stream — the ''run-off" or ''dis- 
charge" — is expressed in various terms, each of which has become 
associated with a certain class of v/ork. These terms may be divided 
into two groups — (1) those which represent a rate of flow, as second- 
feet, gallons per minute, miner's inches, and run-off in second-feet per 
square mile, and (2) those which represent the actual quantity of 
water, as run-off in depth in inches and in acre-feet. The units used 
are second-feet, second-feet per square mile, and run-off in millions 
of cubic feet, run-off in inches and in acre-feet. They may be defined 
as follows : 

"Second-foot" is an abbreviation for cubic foot per second and is 
the unit for the rate of discharge of water flowing in a stream 1 foot 
wide, 1 foot deep, at a rate of 1 foot per second. It is generally used 
as a fundamental unit from which others are computed by the use of 
the factors given in the following table of equivalents. 

"Second-feefc per square mile" is the average number of cubic feet 
of water flowing per second from each square mile of area drained, on 
the assumption that the run-off is distributed uniformly both as 
regards time and area. 

"Run-off in inches" is the depth to which the drainage area would 
be covered if all the water flowing from it in a given period were con- 
served and uniformly distributed on the surface. It is used for com- 
paring run-off with rainfall, which is usually expressed in depth in 
inches. 

"Acre-foot" is equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet, and is the quantity 
required to cover an acre to the depth of 1 foot. It is commonly used 
in connection with storage for irrigation work. 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
CONVENIENT EQUIVALENTS. 



11 



The following is a list of convenient equivalents for use in hydraulic 
computations: 

Table for converting discharge in second-feet per square mile into run-off in depth in 

inches over the area. 



Discharge in 

second-feet per 

square mile. 


Run-ofI in inches. 


1 day. 


28 days. 


29 days. 


30 days. 


31 days. 


1 


0.03719 
. 07438 
.11157 
.14876 
. 18595 
.22314 
. 26033 
.29752 
. 33471 


1.041 
2. 083 
3. 124 
4. 165 
5. 207 
6.248 
7.289 
8.331 
9.372 


1.079 
2.157 
3.236 
4.314 
5. 393 
6.471 
7.550 
8.628 
9.707 


1.116 
2.231 
3.347 
4. 463 
5.578 
6. 694 
7.810 
8.926 
10.041 


1.153 
2.306 
3. 459 
4.612 
5. 764 
6.917 
8.070 
9.223 
10. 376 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 





Note. — For partial month multiply the values for one day by the number of days. 
Table for converting discharge in second-feet into run-off in acre-feet. 



Discharge in 
second-feet. 


Run-otI in acre-feet. 


1 day. 


28 days. 


29 days. 


30 days. 


31 days. 


1 


1.983 
3.967 
5.950 
7.934 
9.917 
11.90 
13.88 
15.87 
17.85 


55.54 
111.1 
166.6 
222.1 
277.7 
333.2 
388.8 
444.3 
499.8 


57.52 
115.0 
172.6 
230.1 
287.6 
345.1 
402.6 
460.2 
517.7 


59.50 
119.0 
178.5 
238. 
297.5 
357.0 
416.5 
476.0 
535.5 


61.49 
123.0 
184.5 
246.0 
307.4 
368. 9 
430.4 
491.9 
553. 4 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 





Note. — For partial month multiply the values for one day by the number of days. 
Table for converting discharge in second-feet into run-off in millions of gallons. 



Discharge in 
second-feet. 


Millions of gallons. 


1 day. 


28 days. 


29 days. 


30 days. 


31 days. 


1 


0.6463 

1.293 

1.939 

2.585 

3.232 

3.878 

4.524 

5.170 

5.817 


18.10 
36.20 
54.30 
72.40 
90.50 
108.6 
126.7 
144.8 
162.9 


18.74 
.37. 448 
56.22 
74.96 
93.70 


19.39 

38.78 
58.17 
77.56 
96. 9.-1 


20.04 
40.08 
60.12 
80.16 
100.2 
120.2 
140.3 
160.3 
180.4 


2 


3 


4. ... 


5 


6 


112.4 116 3 


7 


131.2 
149.9 

168.7 


135.7 
155.1 
174.5 


8 


9 





Note. — For partial month multiply the values for one day by the number of days. 



12 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MARCH-APKIL, 1913. 

Table for converting discharge in second-feet into run-off in millions of cubic feet. 



Discharge in 
second-feet. 


Millions of cubic feet. 


1 day. 


28 days. 


29 days. 


30 days. 


31 days. 


1 


.0864 
.1728 
.2592 
.3456 
.4320 
.5184 
.6048 
.6912 
.7776 


2.419 
4.838 
7.257 
9.676 
12.10 
14.51 
16.93 
19.35 
21.77 


2.506 
5.012 
7.518 
10.02 
12.53 
15.04 
17.54 
20.05 
22.55 


2.592 
5.184 
7.776 
10.37 
12.96 
15.55 
18.14 
20.74 
23.33 


2.678 
5.356 
8.034 
10.71 
13.39 
16.07 
18.75 
21.42 
24.10 


2 


3 


4 


S 


6 


7 


8 


9 





Note. — For partial month multiply the values for one day by the number of days. 

1 second-foot equals 40 California miner's inches (law of Mar. 23, 1901). 
1 second-foot equals 38.4 Colorado miner's inches. 
1 second-foot equals 40 Arizona miner's inches. 

1 second-foot equals 7.48 United States gallons per second ; equals 448.8 gallons per 
minute; equals 646,317 gallons for one day. 

1 second-foot equals 6.23 British imperial gallons per second. 

1 second-foot for one year covers 1 square mile 1.131 feet or 13.572 inches deep. 

1 second-foot for one year equals 31,536,000 cubic feet. 

1 second-foot equals about 1 acre-inch per hour. 

1 second-foot for one day covers 1 square mile 0.03719 inch deep. 

1 second-foot for one 28-day month covers 1 square mile 1.041 inches deep. 

1 second-foot for one 29-day month covers 1 square mile 1.079 inches deep. 

1 second-foot for one 30-day month covers 1 square mile 1.116 inches deep. 

1 second-foot for one 31-day month covers 1 square mile 1.153 inches deep. 

1 second-foot for one day equals 1.983 acre-feet. 

1 second -foot for one 28-day month equals 55.54 acre-feet. 

1 second-foot for one 29-day month equals 57.52 acre-feet. 

1 second-foot for one 30-day month equals 59.50 acre-feet. 

1 second-foot for one 31-day month equals 61.49 acre-feet. 

100 California miner's inches equals 18.7 United States gallons per second. 

100 California miner's inches equals 96.0 Colorado miner's inches. 

100 California miner's inches for one day equals 4.96 acre-feet. 

100 Colorado miner's inches equals 2.60 second-feet. 

100 Colorado miner's inches equals 19.5 United States gallons per second. 

100 Colorado miner's inches equals 104 California miner's inches. 

100 Colorado miner's inches for one day equals 5.17 acre-feet. 

100 United States gallons per minute equals 0.223 second-foot. 

100 United States gallons per minute for one day equals 0.442 acre-foot. 

1.000,000 United States gallons per day equals 1.55 second-feet. 

1,000,000 United States gallons equals 3.07 acre-feet. 

1,000,000 cubic feet equals 22.95 acre-feet. 

1 acre-foot equals 325,850 gallons. 

1 inch deep on 1 square mile equals 2,323,200 cubic feet. 

1 inch deep on 1 square mile equals 0.0737 second-foot per year. 

1 foot equals 0.3048 meter. 

1 mile equals 1.60935 kilometers. 

1 mile equals 5,280 feet. 

1 acre equals 0.4047 hectare. 

1 acre equals 43,560 square feet. 



CAUSES OF FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 13 

1 acre equals 209 feet equare, nearly. 

] square mile equals 2.59 square kilometers. 

1 cubic foot equals 0.02cS3 cubic meter. 

1 cubic foot equals 7.48 gallons. 

1 cubic foot of water weighs 02. 5 pounds. 

1 cubic motor per minute equals 0.588G second-foot. 

I horsepower equals 550 foot-pounds per second. 

1 horsepower equals 76 kilogram-meters per second. 

1 horsepower equals 740 watts. 

1 horsepower equals 1 second-foot falling 8.80 feet. 

IJ horsepower equals about 1 kilowatt. 

m 1 1 i , ... Sec.-ft.X fall in feet , , 

io calculate water power quickly: y^ =net horsepower on water 

wheel realizing 80 per cent of theoretical power. 

CAUSES OF FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 

Disastrous floods have resulted from the following causes, acting 
either alone or in conjunction: 

1. Excessive rainfall. 

2. The rapid melting of accumulated snow. 

3. The failure of reservoirs. 

4. The forming and breaking of ice jams. 

5. The breaking of levees. 

In the Ohio Valley floods have been caused mainly by early spring 
rains, often occurring in conjunction with the melting of accumulated 
snow^ and ice. The flood of 1884 affords a good example of this com- 
bination of the effects of rainfall and melting snow. Of the 46 floods 
above the danger line on record at Cincinnati, Ohio, only three 
occurred outside of the four months January, February, March, and 
April — one in December, 1847, the second in May, 1865, and the third 
in August, 1875. Data concerning the principal floods in the Ohio 
Valley are presented in Tables 1 and 2. 

Table 1 shows the date and crest stage of each rise recorded as above 
the danger line and the number of times the danger line was passed 
at six stations on the Ohio River. In general, values on the same 
horizontal line represent the same floods but where values for dif- 
ferent floods are on the same line the differences in dates are suflS.- 
ciently obvious to avoid confusion. It should be noted that at 
Marietta 35 feet instead of 25 feet (danger hne) was used as the 
limiting stage. 



14 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAKCH-APRIL, 1913. 

Table 1. — Stages, in feet, of floods above danger line, at selected stations on Ohio River. 



Year. 


Pittsburgh, 

Pa.o 

Danger line, 

22 ft. 

Max. 35.5, 

Mar. 15, 1907. 

Min. -1.3, 
Sept. 28, 1881. 


Wheeling, 

W.Va. 

Danger line, 

36 ft. 

Max. 53.1, 

Feb. 7, 1884. 

Min. -0.3, 

Aug. 27-28,1893. 


Marietta, 

Ohio. 

Stages above 

35 ft.6 

Max. 58.3, 

Mar. 29, 1913. 

Min. 1.6, 


Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 

Danger line, 

50 ft. 

Max. 71.1, 

Feb. 14, 1884. 

Min. 1.9, 

Sept.17-19,1881. 


EvansvUle, 

Ind. 

Danger line, 

3'5 ft. 

Max. 48.8, 

Feb. 19, 1884. 

Min. -0.3, 
Nov. 7-8, 1895. 


Paducah, 
Ky. 

Danger line, 

43 ft. 

Max. 54.3, 

Apr. 7, 1913. 

Min. -0.7, 

Oct. 30-Nov. 4, 

1895. 




la 
ft 


03 


Is 
ft 




ft 




ft 


1 


ft 


1 


ft 




1773.... 
















c76 










1806.... 


Apr. 10 
Nov. 9 
.Tan. — 
Feb. — 
Feb. 10 
Feb. 1 
Mar. 15 
Feb. 2 
Dec. 12 

Dec. 22 


33.9 
32.0 
29.0 
33.0 
35.0 
26.8 
25.0 
26.9 
24.0 

23.0 




















1810.... 






















1813.... 






















1816.... 






















1832.... 











Feb. 18 


(264.3 




46.3 






1840.... 


Feb. 11 


38 












1846.... 


















1847. . . . 






















1847. . . . 


Dec. 15 


38.5 






Dec. 17 


63.6 










1848.... 














1849. . . . 




May 9 


39.0 


















1851.... 


Sept. 20 
Apr. 6 
Apr. 19 
May 27 
Apr. 28 
Apr. 12 
Nov. 4 
Sept. 29 

Jan. 21 


30.9 
25.0 
31.9 
26.0 
22.0 
29.7 
22.0 
31.0 

30.0 


















1852. . . . 






















1852.... 






















1858.... 






















1859.... 










Feb. 23 


55.3 










I860.... 


















I860.... 






















1861.... 






















1862.... 


Jan. 21 


40.5 






Jan. 24 
Apr. 13 
Apr. 26 
Mar. 7 
May 14 
Feb. 22 
Mar. 14 


57.3 
51.4 
52.2 

d56.3 
51.2 
54.1 

(255.8 




" 






1862.... 














1862. . . . 


Apr. 22 
Mar. 4 
Mar. 18 
Feb. 15 
Mar. 13 
Mar. 18 


27.9 
24.5 
31.4 
22.0 
23.5 
22.0 


















1865.... 


















1865.... 


















1867.... 


















1867. . . . 














Mar. 21 


52.0 


1868. . . . 
















1870.... 










Jan. 19 


55.3 










1873. . . . 


Dec. 14 
Jan. 8 


25.7 
22.2 


Dec. 15 
Jan. 9 


3S.5 
36.5 


Dec. 16 
Jan. 9 


38.5 
37.7 










1874.... 

1874.... 






Jan. 15 

Feb. 28 
Apr. 16 
Apr. 23 
May S 
Mar. 4-5 
Mar. 22 
Aug. 9-10 
Jan. 3 
Jan. 31 
Feb. 19 
Apr. 3 

Jan. 23-24 


•37.2 
39.2 






1874.... 


















37.2 
36.4 
38.6 
35.8 
36.6 
41.9 
37.9 
43.3 
37.8 
35.4 

41.5 






1874.... 


















Apr. 24 


48.7 


1874. . . . 




















1875.... 






















1875.... 


















Mar. 21 


44.3 


1875.... 










^Aug. 3 


35.3 


Aug. 6 


55.3 




1876.... 


Sept. 19 


25.0 










1876.... 










Jan. 29 


51.8 


Feb. 5 


44.9 


1876.... 
















1876.... 






















1877. . . . 


Jan. 17 
Dec. 11 


24.6 
24.5 










Jan. 20 


(253.8 






1878.... 














1879.... 














Dec. 30-31 
Jan. 12 
Feb. 21 
Mar. 14 
May 3 
Feb. 19 


37.3 
37.0 
42.1 
39.0 
35.2 
38.9 






1880.... 






















1880.... 














Feb. 17 


(253.2 






1880. . . . 














Mar. 22-23 


44.0 


1880.... 




















1881.... 


Feb. 11 
June 10 


23.2 
27.1 


Feb. 12 
June 11 


38. 8 
39.5 


Feb. 14 


39.3 


Feb. 16 


50.6 






1881.... 






1882.... 










Jan. 18 

Feb. 24 
Mar. 28 
May 20 


40.9 

44.9 
38.0 
36.0 


/Jan. 31 
\Feb. 2 

Feb. 26 


Us. 8 
50.0 


1882 










Feb. 23 


35.0 


Feb. 21 


dS8.6 


1882 












1882. . . . 






















1883 


Feb. 5 
Feb. 8 


24.8 
28.0 


















1883.... 






Feb. 9 


43.7 


Feb. 15 


(266.3 


Feb. 19 
Apr. 10-12 
Dec. — 


47.8 
38.8 
(0 


Feb. 25 


50.7 


1883 








1883.... 























o. From report Pittsburgh Flood Commission. 

6 Danger line, 25 feet. Used 35 feet in this report. 

c From traditions. 



(2 Crest. 

e December, 1883, no record. Gageheight Jan. 1,1884, 
equals 39.0. 



CAUSES OF FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



15 



Table 1. — Stages, in feet, offloads above danger line, at selected stations on Ohio River — 

Continued . 



Year. 


Pittsburgh, 

Pa. 
Danger line, 

.22 ft. 

Max. 35.5, 

Mar. 15, 1907. 

Min. -1.3, 
Sept. 28, 1881. 


Wheeling, 

W. Va. 

Danger line, 

36 ft. 

Max. 53.1, 

Feb. 7, 1884. 

Min. -0.3, 

Aug. 27-28,1893. 


Marietta, 

Ohio. 

Stapes above 

35 ft. 

Max. 58.3, 

Mar. 29, 1913. 

Min. 1.6, 


Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 
Danger line, 

50 ft. 

Max. 71.1, 

Feb. 14, 1884. 

Min. 1.9, 

Sept.17-19,1881. 


Evansvillo, 

Ind. 
Danger line, 

35 ft. 

Max. 48.8, 

Feb. 19, 1S84. 

Min. -0.3, 
Nov. 7-8, 1895. 


Paducah, Ky. 
Danger line, 

43 ft. 

Max. 54.3, 

Apr. 7, 1913. 

Min. -0.7, 

Oct. 30-Nov. 4, 

1895. 







ID 

s 


1 


03 


Q 


03 






ft 




03 


t 


18S4.... 
1884 


Feb. 6 


033.3 


Feb. 7 


053.1 


Feb. 9 


0.52. 8 


Feb. 14 


071.1 


Feb. 19 
Mar. 18-21 
Jan. 23 
Apr. 14 
Feb. 8-9 
Mar. 5 
Apr. 28-29 
Apr. 3-4 


048. 8 
39.7 
37 5 


Feb. 23 
Mar. 23 


054.2 
45.9 


1885 


Jan. 17 
Apr. 7 
Feb. 12 
Feb. 27 


23.0 
22.8 
22.0 
22.0 
















1886 










Apr. 9 
Feb. 5 
Mar. 1 


o55. 8 
056.3 
54.6 


43.4 
43.2 
43.1 


Apr. 17 
Feb. 12-13 
Mar. 8 


50.4 


1887 










43.1 


1887 










46.8 


1887 










3S.3 




1888 


Julv 11 
Aug. 22 
June 1 


22.0 
26.0 
24.0 














35.2 






1888 


















1889 
















j 




1890 














Jan. 24 
Feb. 14 
Mar. 5 
Mar. 30-31 


38.9 
37.0 






1890 






















1890 














Mar. 1 
Mar. 26 


56.8 
059.2 


43. 9| Mar. 11 
44.4 Apr. 2-3 


48.5 


1890. . . . 


Mar. 23 
May 24 


24.3 

22.0 










47.2 


1890 












1891 














Jan. 8-10 
Feb. 10 
Mar. 2 
Apr. 9-10 
Apr. 25-28 

Feb. 24 

May 5, 

10-11 


37.6' 

39.1 




1891 


Jan. 3 
Feb. 18. 


23.2 
















1891.... 
1891 


31.3 


Feb. 19 


44.9 


Feb. 20 


43.8 


Feb. 25 


57.3 


42.8 
37.2 
38.2 

41.8 


Mar. 1 


45.5 


1892. . . . 


Jan. 15 

Feb. 8 

Feb. 11 

May 22 
Jan. 8 
July 26 


23.0 

24. P 


















1893.... 






Feb. 11 


36.4 


Feb. 20 


a54.9 
1 


Feb. 27 


44.3 


1893.... 


22.0 

23.2 

25.8 






\40.3 May 13 


44.2 


1894.... 












I 




1895.... 














Jan 17-18 
Apr. 7-8 
Feb. 12-13 
Mar. 2-3 
Jan. 28 
Apr. 2-3 
Jan. 18 

Mar. 12 
Apr. 5 


35.5 

38.8 






1896 


23 














::::::.:::: 




1897.... 
















,35. 5 




1897.... 
1898.... 


Feb. 24 


29.5 


Feb. 24 


36.8 


Feb. 25 


36.0 


Feb. 26 
Jan. 26 
Mar. 29 


a61.2 
52.2 
61.4 


43.6 
43.1 
44.8 
39.1 

42.7 
40.4 


Mar. 24-25 
Jan. 30-31 
Apr. 6 


50.9 

43,8 


1898.... 

1899. . . . 


Mar. 24 


28.9 


Mar. 24 


44.2 


Mar. 25 


47.5 


47.3 


1899.... 


Mar. 6 


22.0 










Mar. 8 
Apr. 1 


057.4 
51.6 






1899.... 










Apr. 4-5 


43.8 


1900.... 


Nov. 27 
Apr. 7 

Apr. 21 

Dec. 16 


27.7 
22.1 

27.5 

25.8 












1901.... 






















1901 


Apr. 22 


40.8 


Apr. 23 


41.4 


Apr. 27 


59.7 


/Apr. 30 
\May 1 


|41.8 






1901.... 






1902.... 














Feb. 5 
Mar. 11 
Dec. 22 
Feb. 11 

Feb. 23 
Mar. 11 
Apr. 22-23 


35. S' 




1902 


Mar. 1 


32.4 


Mar. 2 


42.6 


Mar. 3 


38.4 


Mar. 5 


50.9 


40.0 
40.0 
39.8 

40.7 
42.4 
36.0 






1902. . . . 






1903. . . . 


Feb. 5 


24.0 


















1903.... 


















1903.... 
1903.... 


Mar. 1 


28.9 


Mar. 2 


40.0 


Mar. 3 


38.6 


Mar. 5 


053.2 


Mar. 15-16 


47.6 


1904.... 


Jan. 23 
Mar. 4 
Mar. 8 
Mar. 22 
Dec. 4 


30.0 
26.9 
23.2 
29.0 
23.5 


Jan. 24 
Mar. 4 


43.9 
37.8 


Jan. 25 
Mar. 5 


40.8 
37.8 










1904.... 






Mar. 14 
Apr. 3-4 
Mar. 17 
May 19-20 
Apr. 6 
Jan. 7-8 

Jan. 24-25 
Mar. 23 


36.2 






1904.... 






39.8 
37.4 
35.6 


Apr. 4 


44 7 


1905.... 


Mar. 22 


42.3 


Mar. 23 


40.4 








1905.... 








1906.... 










Apr. 2 


O50.4 


41.1 






1907. . . . 














40.3 

46.2 
43.8 






1907. . . . 


Jan. 20 
Mar. 15 
Mar. 20 
Feb. 16 


23.3 
35.5 
22.4 
30.7 


Jan. 20 
Mar. 15 


36.1 
O50.1 






Jan. 21 
Mar. 19 


065.2 
62.1 


Jan. 28 


45 7 


1907.... 


Mar. 16 


'•48.7 




1907.... 






1908.... 


Feb. 17 


42.6 


Feb. 18 
Mar. 5 
Mar. 21 


a39.1 

36.4 

a36.4 


Feb. 20 
Mar. 12 
Apr. 4 


051.3 
o53. 4 
o55. 9 


Feb. 24 
Mar. 15 
Apr. 8-9 
May 12-13 
Mar. 2 
May 10 
Jan. 27 


40.9 
41.5 
42.2 
37.6 
43.2 
35.7 
38. 6 






1908.... 






1908.... 


Mar. 20 


27.3 


Mar. 21 


38.4 






1908.... 






1909.... 


Feb. 25 
May 1 
Jan. 19 


22.3 
22.2 
22.8 






Feb. 26 


35.0 


Feb. 28 


54.6 


Mar. 5-6 


44 5 


1909.... 








1910.... 



















a Crest. 



16 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APKIL, 1913. 



Table 1. — Stages, in feet, of floods above danger line, at selected stations on Ohio River — 

Continued. 



Year. 


Pittsburgh, 

Pa. 

Danger line, 

22 ft. 

Max. 35.5, 

Mar. 15,1907. 

Min. -1.3, 

Sept. 28, 1881. 


Wheeling, 

W. Va. 

Danger line, 

36 ft. 

Max. 53.1, 

Feb. 7, 1884. 

Min. -0.3, 

Aug. 27-28,1893. 


Marietta, 

Ohio. 

Stages above 

35 ft. 

Max. 58.3. 

Mar. 29, 1913. 

Min. 1.6, 


Cincinnati, 

Ohio. 
Danger line, 

50 ft. 

Max. 71.1, 

Feb. 14, 1884. 

Min. 1.9, 

Sept.l7-19,18Sl. 


Evansville, 

Ind. 

Dana:er line, 

35 ft. 

Max. 48.8, 

Feb. 19, 18S4. 

Min. —0.3, 
Nov. 7-8, 1895. 


Paducah, Ky. 
Danger line, 

43 ft. 

Max. 54.3, 

Apr. 7, 1913. 

Min. —0.7, 

Oct. 30-Nov. 4, 

1895. 




ft 


a 

^ 

K 


03 
ft 




03 
O 


a) 

M 


o3 




03 
O 


6 

tuO 


ft 


6 

CQ 


1910.... 


May 1 
Jan. 15 
Jan. 31 


22.0 
23.8 
625.2 


Mar. 3 
Jan. 16 


■37.3 
a36.1 


Mar. 4 


39.6 


Mar. 7 


51.8 


Mar. 10 


39.7 






1911.... 






1911.... 










Feb. 9 
Apr. 17 
Mar. 3 
Mar. 31 


38.8 
38.4 
36 3 






1911.... 


















1912 






















1912.... 


Mar. 22 


b28.1 


Mar. 23 


C3S.4 






Mar. 27 
Apr. 5-6 


653.4 
51.7 


42.6 






1912.... 






Apr. 8-11 


49 9 


1912. . . . 














May 3 


d35.8 




1913.... 


Jan. 9 
Jan. 13 

Mar. 28 

ot times 

danger 


631.3 
626.3 
630.4 

82 


Jan. 10 
Jan. 13 
Mar. 28 

28 


44.2 
39.0 
651.1 














1913.... 
1913.... 

Number 
above 
line. . . 


Jan. 13 
Mar. 29 

e25 


42.6 
658.3 


Jan. 14 
Apr. 1 

46 


662.2 
6t«.S 


Jan. 20 
Apr. 5 

86 


46.7 
648.4 


Jan. 25 
Apr. 7 

29 


47.6 
654.3 







a Falling. No reading Jan. 15. 
6 Crest. 

c Rising. No reading Mar. 24. 
d Rising. No reading May 4. 

e 5 crests subsequent to March, 1905, reported: "Gages under veater." No readings available. Probably 
2 of these were above 35 feet. 

Table 2 gives the highest stage shown by regular gage readings (or 
the crest stage if known) at certain stations for each of a number of 
floods from 1880 to 1913, selected by taking all floods whose crest 
stages at Cincinnati were above 58 feet. (See Table 1 for dates.) 
The flood of 1912 reached a crest stage of only 53.2 feet at Cincinnati, 
but is included in the table because of its recent occurrence and the 
importance of its effect on the lower Mississippi. The gage heights 
at other stations are for the crests corresponding to the crests at 
Cincinnati and therefore do not necessarily represent the maximum 
stages for the years considered at all the stations. In some years — 
as, for example, 1897 and 1912 — two crests were recorded on the 
tributaries about the time of the rise on the main stream. In such 
event the crest believed to be the more nearly comparable with that 
on the Ohio was selected. A study of the floods prior to 1880 can 
be made from Table 1. The maximum stage given at each station 
is the highest of which there is authentic record. 

These tables show clearly that danger from flood is ever present 
on the Ohio. In every year for more than 40 years the river passed 
the danger line at some of the six stations selected. 



CAUSES OF FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



17 



ci OD OS o> OS oo 30 a) o* oi o> 

.q . .p .p .pp ''. 

lOt-i^f^Cft oo-^r^O)'^ f-tooooscooo 

ccJ'iC-^io t::o!£'00 t-i^'<^»o»o»o 

Tt^COf-HCCOS 00 *t t^ Ol -^ OOOTfOlCOOO 

OCO-HOOOO C^Ob^r^O O^OCOCN"^'^ 

CO -^ lO lO lO (O to ^ O O c£) l^ "^ »C *0 *0 

CC«C^^t- COh-ONCO C^ fH M^ Cq CD OS 

^C^i'^oJfN O-T'cDCOt^ oiiO'^OOWOO 

CC'^TT't''^ iO»0iQiO*0 OO-^-^-^-^ 



Is 



■3 -3 









(M CC O O OO 
"i C^ CO O^ -^ 



■^•Tj*'*t<lO'^ lOO-^TPt^lO 



oco Oilmen 



CO -^ -^ 00 CN i-HCDOOOcOC^ 

'TfooOOOi (N^COiOMi:D 
._ ^ ^ ^ ^ 



■^tO'^^iO lOu^COCOtO O'XJ'f*^' 



NGOOCSCO 

c*i t-^ o o o 



CSJ O (M »0 t^ "rt< 



irj <0 O CO <0 O O "^ -^ ■'I* »0 



CO t^ f-I CO 

y-i coco 



r-^ t-lOrH CO 



00 c^ -^ r^oo 1-H 

C^ (N Tt* tP rfi lO 



lO t- 00 O 05 CO 

oi t^ CO CD t^ C^i 

(N CO CO CO CO »0 



(M*00 i-H 

CO CO lO 00 

CO CO CO -^ 



o -^ 

CD t-^ 



OOOi 



b- 00 00 t^ -^ <M 

oi 00 --^ 1-H 05 CO 
Uti lO -^ -^ CO ■* 



1-H CM 1-^'M 



■rococo CO 00 

T-i (N "^ 00 t^ oi 
CD O '^ '<** Tf -^ 



CM O CD t^ a: O 

r-H r-I CO "^ O --^ 



(M tH Tt* CO CM t^ 

C: --H TjH CD t^ OO 
lO CO ■^ -^ -^ -t* 





oo 

COM 




OOO 



O -^ CD «D lO 



< O 00 OCM CO 
-H CM 00 '-H -^ --H 



iOiO»0 COCDCDCDCD b-t~^-^i 



COO 



m > (C ■— J<l 



OOC5 



C3 o K *^ ^ 

•a Is 



oo 

O'-i 



•9 .a a c a o" 

3 (^ 3 -o ^fc- 



t^CL, 






£ Mai o 1^ 
,-. ^ "-^ o ^ ° ^~ 



a a 



'3S sSJ^i 



CO t^COt-H 
GO CC »C CO 



o cj ri -^ 



i-KN C^IIM-H ^<N(M— I 



00 CO O 00 



lOOCO 

OCM ■* 



^0 05 
OOOiO 



-St 

0-3 



bijf^ 



PU 



>.® , 



1:3 o 



O 



• O o 
.. -2 § 2 

P>.g feN-? 

c a £ -<* 

~ B <u o M 

■B O t* -rl n5 

o s.ts 



. <D 



M,-! o o 



o 



'^'^ -2- 

On a 



CU 



W)c 



&1 -i-g 

g o -^ 



•23 



taOS 



EhHoKo 



--H (N CO -^ 10 ^t^OOOO ^C 



■-l(N COTt<»o 



tDt^OOO) 



3833°— wsp 334—13- 



18 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APRIL, 1913. 



^ 



O 



"8 



•^ 



^ 
s 



^ 







00 0000 COrH CC 


COO) CO 


CO 00 


coco (MtM lOt^t-^'Mt'- 1 






r^ w t^ t-toi-i 


■rH O rH 


rH t^ 


rH 1-t 00 00 b-OOsOOOi 






00 0000 000003 




ojoo 


1 oio 0000 2222222222 1 








-. •s 


- ., 


^ 


^ 


•y -* 


^ 


, ^ 


^ ^ -s 




a5 


lO CO 


-!f OOt^ 


lOTfl CO 


t^ 


^- O (M 1-1 Ol "^ 


i 


C3 
ft 


rt T-H _ rt (N d 


<M(M (M O CM 

■ . . .0 . r 


; (M CO (M ^'H l-H (N 

■ . . . r "^ • • 

1 ^ ^ d d ^ S c3 ^ 






CO CBCB MOqS 


:sg a 


se 


; sa ^^ ;^:sa_^ 


« 






00O5 "^ 


00 O CD CO 


CM O COCO COlO 




Sf 


r^ COO- 


^ t^cdci 


CM l~^ C^ ^ ^-^ 


rHrH lO O OS 00 CM CO 




-2 


CO (M ira CO Tf >-i 


CMCO Cq CO CO-dt 


COCO to CO cotoco^ 




M 


e 


a 


a a a 




a a 


a a 


a 


a 


a 


1 e 


O 10»0 lOOO^ OOOlr-l OCD OCOfM (MO 0505 OCOIOCO 1 


CO i.;-^ 



















i:! c3 C 


■O •^f'JD t^^a> (NIM-H COtJI TjHoOr- 


rHrH ^O rHCOOOCO 1 


S^ft 


tM rHCO CSICO^H Tj*C<JCO C^CO COCOCO COCO -^lO (MCOt-HCO 


•^<l 


















" a 


O 00(M coioir 


COiO^ oo OOO"- 


CMCO 'JtlO 'ilCnOrH 1 


'^ -^00 c^ --H t^ lo if5 ■* T^ o CO -^ «^ 


T-H rr 


00 >c6 CO t^ lO o 


05 03 




—1 .-'(N 


(Mi-H c^ 


rHrH CO CO C" 


CMCS 


^ to rH rH CO 


■-II-5 








A 




" 




"a a a 


M 


Tf 


OOC 


lo c o o o o- 


00 00 O CO -ef 


t-.C<l 


COCO OCdcD r)< 


c 


oit- 


cd^ CO o6<or 


coc- 


»f6 lOO* 


oi c^ 


CO CO t-^C? Oi to 


3 






y-lC^y-< 


COrH(N 




CM CM 05 


7-< CM 


■^ to rH COrH CO 


^ 


a 


e 





a 


a 






a a 


^ 




lO 


lOO 


COO-H 


C^1 CO O CO C<1 


COO 


OICO OTt<iO Tt< 


o 3 




CO 


COrH 


o5oi oc 


IOC 


ooco 


t^C 


00 to cjood ^ to 










(Mi-KM 


rHO) 


CM CM CO 










a a 




a 








^ 




»o 


ooo 


OCOIO O 


t^CD 


t^tO CMOO COOt-lO 


og 




t~^ 


i^d 


o r-^oo c^' 


looi 


Tj5 Td5 00 00 ccooto -<j5 


as ra 






i-H CO 


COrHIM rH 


CM CM 


CMCM CMCO rH 


^^•-9 
























a a 










1 




^ 


o 


OTflr- 


>OCO<M ■* 


^rH 




lO 00 C-1 CM >0 CO t^ 


o 


oc 


00 


o to a 


"^ CO O CO 


-*iO 




CO b^rH CD-CO CO ^ 


a 






coco 


CO <>. 




CM CM 




rH CO "St rHCMrH CM 


^ 




a 


a a 


a 










a 


?8 




OOO 


05 0C 


CO 


CD 


COiM 












Ol 




OCO f^ 




t^ r^ 


COO5 0C 


Tl? 


t^ 


00 rH 










r^ 


CO 




00 rH r-i 


00 




tH 


rt i-l 


IM 




rH IM 










C-1 

a 


c-1 




rHrH C-1 


t^ 




00 cc 


lOrHO- 


CD 


O O: 








■r*< Tj 


w 


- lO OS to O 




Tlit- 


odrH CC 


-* 


t^ to 








00 CD OO 


c--i r^ c-i oo 


00 




rH CQ 


<M rtti^ 


M< 


c^ 










rH C-1 ■* 


CM CO CO ^P 


rH 




a 


a 




















O 




lO 


ooo 


o 


>^ 








o 




o 


o 


COC<|rH t^ 




i>^ 


•*^ 


00 


TjH 








^ 






^ 


^ f^ CO t^ 


2 




a 


rH CO 

a 


CO 


CM 








CO 




c; 


■^ 


rH C-1 rH CO 


^ 




to 


"50 


^ 


















CM 


rHOOCM ^ 




o 


O 03 


^ 


















C^ 


COCO -* T)5 




























rHCOCM ^ 


'■^ 




a 


8 a 




























«o 


oo 
















t^ 


CO 


to COO O 


ss 




t-1 


CD O 














CM 


r~^ 


^ 


00 t-^ C-1 O^ 








T-l IM 














Tt< 


CM 


^ 




^ 






a a 






















M 




c^ 


Tjiira 






















CO 




CO 00 CO 




05 


coco 






















o6 




CJrH CO 


CO 






r-l(M 


























CO C-1 rf( 


T-H 






a a 










































^ 














































M 














































C3 














































tas 




























































































cu 














































p< 














































a. 














































s 












a. 


































(A 












§ 


) 


















n 














M 












§ 


i 


















_o 














^ 












t- 




















2 














^ 












i 


























c3 


> 


o 












c 


', 


















■a 
a 

C3 


> 


> 

c 

1 


> 

> 


> 


a 
< 
a 

1 

1 


d 
rt c 


> 

1 

E 

Pi 

c 


c 
c 


c 
II 




> 

1 

c 

fie- 


> 
= 

1 

c 


CC 




.. a 

a 
u 


r 
c 
a 
fr 

1 


1 

a 


c 
c: 
1 


a 
1 


r 

e 

- > 

c 




6 


c 


l-H CV 


corf ir 


CDt^W 


oc 


rH C<I O- 


TfH IT 


CO 1-^ OOOIO rH 


12 








^ 
















(^ 


|^ 


Cv 


Cs 


CV 


Cv 


C-1 - - 


C^ 


c- 


c^ 


Cr 




1 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 19 

HISTORY OF THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

GENERAL CAUSES. 

Tho flood of March-April, 1913, beginning on March 23 (Easter 
Sunday), was caused solely by -excessive precipitation over a com- 
parativoly largo area, as a result of wliich great volumes of water 
were Uterally dumped into the rivers of northern Indiana and Ohio, 
especially the Miami, Scioto, and Muskingum, which attained such 
overwhelming proportions and spread such sudden and far-reaching 
disaster and ruin. (See Table 3 and PI. Ill, p. 20.) Only a smaU 
share of the damage can be ascribed to the failure of dams, for no 
large dams failed. These northern tributaries, liitherto compara- 
tively impotent m creating extreme floods on the Ohio itself, were the 
cliief and direct sources of the water which caused the destructively 
liigli stages during this flood on the main stream from Marietta, Ohio, 
to Maysville, Ky., and probably on do^vn to Cairo, 111. It is probable 
that the stages on the lower Ohio were increased by the effects of the 
levees constructed on the IMississippi at and below Cairo. Plate I 
(frontispiece) shows typical conditions on the main Oliio during this 
flood and the destruction along the northern tributaries. 

It should be kept in mind that, in conjunction with tliis unprece- 
dented flow from the northern tributaries of the Ohio, the eastern 
and southern tributaries were discharging very large quantities of 
water. The stages reached on these other tributaries were much 
liigher than in ordinary floods but much lower than previously 
recorded maxima. 

On the Ohio the rise was extremely rapid from March 25 to 29 at 
aU points above Louisville. Crest stages were reached from Pitts- 
burgh to Wheeling on March 28, and followed very quickly at other 
points from Marietta to Louisville, the crest passing the latter city 
on April 1. From Evansville to Cairo the rise was much less rapid, 
the crest not passing into the JVIississippi until April 8. 

The almost inconceivable damage wrought by the flood was un- 
questionably increased in a very great measure by the works of man 
in the channels, along the banks, and across the river valleys. Al- 
though the presence of the enormous volume of water may be con- 
sidered nothing more nor less than " an act of God, " stiU a large share 
of the blame for the resulting damage must be laid to man, not only for 
the positive harm done by the works of municipal and rural improve- 
ment but also because of the entire absence of any comprehensive 
engineering works built for the prevention of such damage by floods. 

In considering the cause of the flood the condition of the ground 
just prior to the flood and the amount of water already in the river 
channels should be noted. The ground was not frozen but was prac- 
tically saturated by previous rains and so did not offer means of 
storing any considerable amoimt of the water and thereby tending 



20 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAKCH-APEIL, 1913. 



to prevent its rapid discharge into the streams. It is extremely 
doubtful, however, if ground storage, even under the most favorable 
conditions, would have had any material effect in reducing this flood 
because of the intensity of the precipitation. No time was available 
in which the ground, even if it had not been saturated, might absorb 
the rain. In addition to these conditions, so favorable to rapid run- 
off, the river channels were fairly well filled, none of the tributaries 
being low, the main Ohio being at ordinary stage above Parkersburg 
and at comparatively high stage below Parkersburg. Plate II shows 
typical street scenes at Parkersburg and Marietta during this flood. 

PRECIPITATION AND TEMPER ATURE. 

The two storms of March 23 to 27, 1913, which caused the flood, 
were preceded by a storm of moderate intensity, wliich passed down 
the St. Lawrence Valley March 22 and which had been accompanied 
by sufficient precipitation over the Ohio basin to moisten the soil and 
to cause it to become quickly saturated by the heavier rains that 
followed. 

The distribution of the rainfall in the five days from March 23 to 
27, as determined from rainfall records at a large number of stations, 
is shown on Plate IIIj which shows also principal streams, towns, 
and rainfall and gaging stations. The amount of- precipitation, 
daily and total, for the same period at certain selected stations is 
shown in Table 3. 

Table 3. — Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin for 

Mar. 23-27, 1913. 



No. 


Station. 


Mar. 23. 


Mar. 24. 


Mar. 25. 


Mar. 26. 


Mar. 27. 


Total. 


1 


OMo. 
Toledo 


0.00 
0.20 
0.00 
0.00 
O2.20 

a 0. 00 

6 0.50 

0.90 

1.40 

1.40 

0.00 
0.46 
6 2.34 
0.00 
0.00 

0.17 

0.00 

0.36 

T. 

1.07 

0.23 
0.00 
0.62 
0.00 


2.44 
1.50 
0.60 
1.96 
1.58 

2.21 
2.90 
2.00 
2.00 
1.50 

1.42 
0.99 
1.50 
2.76 
1.07 

1.53 
1.10 
2.74 
0.37 

0.14 

1.03 
1.36 
0.72 
0.06 


2.68 
2.00 
2.62 
2.88 
2.05 

4.15 
3.30 
5.20 
4.40 
5.60 

0.84 
2.67 
2.51 
1.92 
1.48 

3.41 
6.10 
3.67 
6.66 

0.17 

0.06 
0.08 
2.22 
1.56 


0.34 
2.30 
2.72 
1.26 
0.95 

1.11 

1.50 
1.60 
1.90 
2.10 

0.00 
0.15 
0.50 
0.07 
2.71 

0.48 
1.20 
2.27 
1.80 

T. 

0.01 
0.04 


0.68 
0.40 
' 1.00 
0.98 
0.40 

0.00 
0.80 
0.90 
1.00 
0.50 


6.14 


•> 


Circleville 


6.40 


3 


Columbus ; 


6.94 


4 


Cleveland 


7.08 


,") 


Sandusky 


7.18 


6 


Cincinnati 


7.47 


7 


Dayton 


9.00 


8 


Bangorville 


10.60 


P 


Marion 


10.70 


in 


BeUefontaine 


11.10 


11 


Indiana. 
Notre Dame 




1^ 


Terre Haute 


0.29 
0.14 
0.61 
0.32 

0.42 

0.20 

T. 

0.45 

T. 
0.09 


4.56 


13 


Anderson. . 


6.99 


14 


Fort Wayne 


5.36 


15 


EvansviUe 


5.58 


Ifi 


Indianapolis 


6.01 


17 


EUiston 


8.60 


18 


Madison 


9.04 


It) 


Shoals 


9.28 


?n 


Illinois. 
LaSaUe 


1.38 


'>^ 


Peoria 


1.42 


'>'? 


Chicago 


1.48 


9S 


Springfield . . 


0.24 
0.26 


3.80 


24 


Cairo 


2.72 


4.60 



a Readings for 24 hours, midnight to midnight. 
6 Readings for 24 hours, 7 p. m. to 7 p. m. 



Note.— All other stations, readings 8 a. m. to 8 a. m. 



U. S. GEOLOGIfAi SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 PLATE II 




A. SECOND STREET, MARIETTA, OHIO, DURING FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913, AFTER WATER 

HAD FALLEN. 

Mark on house shows crest height; note wrecked verandas. 




B. MARKET STREET, PARKERSBURG, W. VA., DURING FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
Detail view of street shown at center in Plate I, A. 



U S GEOLOGICAL S 
GEORGE OTIS SMITH. 






ll-L 




MAP SHOWING RAINFALL IN OHIO RIVER HASIN. MARCH 23-27. l!)l;i 



HISTORY OF THE FLOOD. 



21 



Table 3. — Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin for 
Mar. 23-27, i9/^— Continued. 


No. 


Station. 


Mar. 23. 


Mar. 24. 


Mar. 25. 


Mar. 26. 


Mar. 27. 


Total. 


'>'i 


Kentucky. 


0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

T. 

0.00 

0.00 
0.00 
0.00 

a 1.06 

0.00 

0.00 

T. 

0.00 

0.00 


T. 

0.21 
0.00 
0.00 
0.1.5 
0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

T. 

3.59 

1.30 

0.00 
0.20 
1.32 

0.08 


0.16 

1.79 
0.30 
0.11 
4.95 
0.00 

T. 

0.00 

T. 

0.39 

1.26 

0.23 
0.72 
2.76 

0.05 


2.03 

2.46 
3.23 
3.35 
0.87 
3.04 

0.17 
0.25 
2.32 

0.80 

0.24 

0.58 
1.72 
1.02 

1.60 


1.29 

0.01 
0.96 
1.06 
T. 
3.28 

1.54 
2.17 
0.65 

0.01 

0.60 

2.04 
0.86 
1.04 

1.28 


3.48 


?fi 




4.47 


?7 




4.49 


?S 




4.52 


■>9 




5.97 


30 


BeiUt vville 


0.32 


31 


Tennessee. 


1.71 


3? 




2.42 


33 


Nashville 


2.97 


34 


Missouri. 


5.85 


35 


Michigan. 
Detroit 


3.40 


36 


Pennsylvania. 


2.85 


37 


Pittsburgh 


3.50 


3S 




6.14 


3Q 


Parkersburg 


3.01 









a Readings for 24 hours, midnight to midnight. 

The first of the two storms of March 23-27 developed on the morn- 
ing of the 22d over the far West, with a center over Nevada. During 
the succeeding 24 hours this disturbance moved slowly eastward, 
gathering energy, and at 8 a. m. on the 23d was central over Colorado. 
By this time it was weU developed and was attended by rains over 
Indiana, IlHnois, and portions of Iowa and Wisconsin. 

Durmg the day of the 23d the storm moved east-northeastward, 
and at 8 p. m., seventy-fifth meridian time, was central sUghtly to the 
northeast of Omaha, Nebr. The rain area had advanced to the region 
of the lower Lakes, western New York, and western Pennsylvania, so 
that at this hour precipitation vv^as taking place over practically the 
entire drainage basin of Ohio River. 

Meanwliile, as the center of the storm was drifting slowly eastward 
from the neighborhood of Nebraska during the afternoon and early 
night of the 23d, a number of small tornadic storms formed in Michi- 
gan, Indiana, lUinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. Several towns and cities 
received more or less damage from these concentrated disturbances, 
including Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Terre Haute, Ind., but by far' 
the most terrible infliction from any of these tornadoes, in that 
numerous Hves were lost, occurred at Omaha, Nebr. 

During the night of March 23-24 the precipitation area of the main 
storm extended eastward, and on the morning of Monday, the 24th, 
had reached the Atlantic Ocean. The rain was becoming excessive 
in many places, especially over the height of land separating the basins 
of Ohio River and southern Lake Erie. 



22 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

The first storm was central at 8 a. m. on March 24 over and to the 
north of the upper Lakes, Thence it moved northeastward, and by 
8 p. m. was far down in the St. Lawrence Valley, with an area of high 
pressure in its rear. 

Early on March 24 another disturbance had formed over the south- 
west and was developing into an elongated trough of low pressure, 
which rapidly extended eastward, and at night of the 24th was 
attended by rain as far in advance of this second storm as the rear of 
the precipitation area of the first storm. 

Here another factor must be taken into consideration. In advance 
of the first storm which caused the tornadoes of the 23d, a great bank 
of high pressure moved eastward across the Atlantic States and into 
the ocean. It settled over the Bermudas and there remained prac- 
tically stationary until the 27th. Thus while the second storm from 
the West was pressing eastward during the 24th, an area of high 
pressure existed off the Atlantic coast and another area was spreading 
eastward from the region of the Great Lakes. At 8 p. m. on the 24th 
these two areas of high pressure were separated only by a lane of low 
pressure, which extended northeast-southwest over the Ohio basin 
and connected the approaching with the vanishing storm. The rain 
area of this new storm, while continuous with that of the preceding 
storm, was also attended by heaviest precipitation over the region 
already flooded or threatened with flood. Heavy rains continued 
throughout the night of Monday-Tuesday (24-25), and by 8 a. m. 
on the 25th the amount of rainfall at some river stations in north- 
central Ohio exceeded 6 inches. 

On the morning of the 25th a shallow trough of low pressure, with 
centers over Arkansas and the Ohio VaUey, extended from New 
England to Texas. The temperature was at freezing or below in 
northern Indiana and lUinois and snows were taking the place of the 
rains to the north and west. Owing to the persistence of the area of 
high pressure along the Northern States, the storm was checked in its 
forward movement and continued to flood the Ohio Valley. 

During Tuesday, the 25th, the rain area spread southward and pre- 
cipitation became heavier toward the east. Keports to the United 
States Weather Bureau at 8 a. m. on Wednesday, March 26, showed 
little change in the storm area since the previous morning, but during 
the 26th the southern portion of the trough of low pressure moved 
eastward from the Mississippi VaUey, so that by the morning of the 
'27th (Thursday) it lay north and south from New York to North Caro- 
lina and the precipitation had turned to snow over the Ohio Valley. 
By this time the area of high pressure over Canada was proceeding 
into the ocean and the bank of high pressure over the Bermudas was 
slowly giving way. Consequently, the storm that had so long poured 
its waters upon the endangered region was able to advance more 
freely and by the morning of the 28th was passing rapidly north- 
eastward from New England. 



HISTORY OF THE FLOOD. 23 

Thus it is soon, that these two storms passed in succession, with the 
pocuhar condition that ono disturbance followed the other so closely 
that the rain areas of the two blended, concentrating over' the same 
portion of the country and creating the most disastrous Hood in the 
history of the Ohio Valley. 

The best idea of the intensity and distribution of the combined 
storms over the drainage basins in the Oliio Valley may be gained 
from a study of Plate III (p. 20). 

It should bo noted that no extremely low temperatures existed 
immediately before, during, or after this flood; that the ground in 
Indiana and Ohio, and in fact all of the Ohio Valley, was not frozen 
and, further, that there was no snow or ice stored in an}^ part of the 
Ohio River drainage basin. A more complete meteorologic history 
of these storms, with charts, will be found in the pubhcations of the 
United States Weather Bureau, from wliich much of the above 
information was taken. 

PROGRESS OF THE FLOOD. 

The progress of the flood is shown clearly by the graphic repre- 
sentation of gage heights on Plates IV and V and by Tables 4, 5, 
11, and 12 (pp. 25, 26, 48, 49). 

The Miami, the most westerly of the tributaries from the State of 
Ohio, was the first large stream to reach alarming proportions. A 
large measure of the attention drawn to this river, and more particu- 
larly to Dayton, the principal city along its banks, is due to this fact. 
Plate VI gives typical views of Dayton immediately after the flood. 
At Dayton a crest stage of 29.0 feet — about 8.0 feet higher than the 
crest of any other known flood at that place (21.3 feet in 1866) — was 
reached about 1 a. m. March 26. The crest reached Hamilton about 
3 a. m. on the same day, the maximum stage being 34.6 feet, about 
13.5 feet higher than the previously recorded maximum (21.2 feet 
March 24, 1898). On Scioto River, whose headwaters adjoin those 
of Miami River, crest stages occurred practically simultaneously with 
those on the Miami. At Columbus (dramage area less than two- 
thirds of that above Dayton) the crest of 22.9 feet, only 1.6 feet 
greater than the previous maximum (21.3 feet March 23, 1898), 
occurred at noon on March 25, and at ChUlicothe the crest of 37.8 
feet, 9.5 feet higher than the previous maxunum (28.3 feet March 24, 
1898), was reached at 11 a. m., March 26. The flood followed 
quickly on Muskingum River, the largest and most easterly of the 
three principal streams in the State of Ohio. At Zanesville a maxi- 
mum of 51.8 feet occurred in the early morning of March 27, just 15 
feet higher than the highest stage previously on record (36.8 feet 
March 24, 1898). At Beverly, only 20 miles from the mouth of the 
Muskingum, the crest of 46.5 feet, about 11 feet above the maximum 
(35 feet March, 1898), was reached on March 27. 



24 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

Thus it will be noted that although the progress of the storms wa 
from the mouth toward the source of Ohio Kiver, the crests from th 
northern tributaries in the State of Ohio reached the main streai 
within a period of about 24 hours of each other and within froi 
three to four days of the very beginning of the precipitation, Thi 
accounts for the extreme rapidity of the rise on the Ohio from Mar: 
etta to Portsmouth; as shown on Plate IV. By the night of Marc 
27 and the morning of the 28th crests from all tributaries of th 
Ohio above the Kanawha had reached the main stream. Flow fror 
portions of the Monongahela system came in later than most of th 
others, which accounts for the lagging of the crest at Pittsbm-gl: 
Crest stages occurred at Pittsburgh, Beaver Dam, and Wheeling o 
March 28 but were below previously recorded maxima. Crests fror 
the remaining tributaries reached the Ohio on March 28, with th 
exception of those from the Wabash, Cumberland, and Tennesse 
rivers. (The crest of April 5 on Green Kiver was due to backwater. 
Crest stages on Ohio River from Marietta to LouisvUle were reache- 
successively March 29 to April 1, as shown by Table 11 (p. 48). 

The effect of the northern tributaries in Ohio on the stages of th 
main stream is most marked from Marietta to Maysville, and through 
out this portion of the Ohio new high-water records were establishec 
Muskingum River was more instrumental than any other single tribu 
tary in causing the record-breaking stages on the Ohio, as shown b 
the fact that previously recorded maxima were surpassed at Mariett 
and Parkersburg by 5 to 5.5 feet, the greatest other increase bein 
2.8 feet at Point Pleasant. Previous maximum stages at Cincinnat 
Louisville, and EvansviUe were not surpassed by the flood of Marct 
April, 1913. Crests from Wabash, Cumberland, and Tennesse 
rivers reached the Ohio on March 29 and 30. The effect of th 
Wabash and its tributaries, which broke all previous high-watf 
records, is shown at Moxmt Vernon, Paducah, and Cairo, at whic 
places, particularly at Mount Vernon, all previously recorded maxim 
were exceeded. The Cumberland and Tennessee were not in extren 
flood during the period of maximum stage at Cairo. Stages at Can 
and points on the Ohio within the influence of backwater from tl: 
Mississippi were no doubt increased by the levees at and below Cain 
all of which held during this flood. 

STAGE AND DISCHARGE. 

Records of stage, obtained from records of the United Stati 
Geological Survey, United States Weather Bureau, and United Stat< 
Engineer Corps, for periods sufficiently long to cover the entire floe 
of March- April, 1913, are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The ga| 
heights represent one reading each day taken about 7 or 8 a. r 
Some of the data were taken from advance publications and recor( 
quicldy prepared and may be subject to slight revision. 









h 


CINC/NNATI 

(■f63 m/'/es) 






1 








i 


LOUI5V/LLE 
f604m//esj 


\ 


^ 


1 


EI/ANSt^/UE 
( 787 mi/esj 


^s 




_^' 










MT. \i'Ef?NON 


— 




-^ 


(924 m//e^J 


30 












^ 


(967m//esj 


,75 













FLOOD HYDRO' 

The distance of 



, S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



ER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 PLATE IV 




FLOOD HVDROGRAPHS <GAGE HEIGHTS, XrCH-a'p^RI^iT, s"' °[ 

Pittsburgh and the 
For gage heights 



The distance of each station below Pittsburgh .^"d ;l'^<J/„"f ^^i'^^^ ^^"^^l^f 



10 RIVER DURING THE FLOOD 

by horizontal arrows) are shown. 




FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS (GASE HEIGHTS, FOR STATIONS ON OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARY STREAMS DURING THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APR 
Th^ k J u , J J . .™ «r,^^r and those for tfibutafias are fffouped above the Ohio River hydfograph for the station most affected by 

th'. .ni'?,'' '" «\' \",It;^('-:.!.'Ri:,''r,"nbutaTv to tU Oh.o bdow Portsn^aoth t^^e Siami below Cincinnati, and th! Wab.sh belo 
I place to show thoeffect. if any, oftheflowffom these tributary streams^upon Oh^ 
n though 111 



artffVdoutoftheirnatural place to show <noeHect. if any. of the flow from these triDutar; 
>w these points Crests are indicated by «rt,cal arrows. dar,ger lir>e stages by horizontal a 



The hydrographs 
5, pages 25. 26! 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEV 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 314 PLATE VI 




A. MIAMI STREET CANAL BRIDGE, DAYTON, OHIO, AFTER THE FLOOU OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
Note the dead horse on bridge rail. 




B. POST OFFICE, DAYTON, OHIO, AFTER THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
Dead horse in front of left radiator. 



HISTORY OF THE FLOOD. 



25 



CO'-tiONcD'^t^lMt^Oi— IOOCOI>-iO 

COOOCOi— lCSt^COOt^»OiOC>lLQiOi— < 

Tt*C^COiOi— iC^^'OOOCOC^'^1— lO(M 
Q 

r--c^T-iooc^"^t^osoc^cC'^*^oo 
cooociGOOcooc^OifOfosr-t^ 

OOt^Or^<NOOi-HGOOOOt^O<MtOr-H 

■"rjlooooocoiooc-i^oor^i— ic^o^ 

1— iCOiOOl— i-^i— lOCOtNCOOCOiOiO 
(Nrt^-rrfC0CC"^iO'^»O'^C0C0C0'^ 
i-lO»O<-HC^<MCN05C0C0^'-tOOi0 

OOOu:)OT-l<-<lOr-li-HCOCOOCOCOC5 

^^^rH.-l(N(NlMC<ICC'* 

COi— iCOOCOOifOi-HCCt^COCOOCOCi 

t-H.-irHt-(i-iCS(NC^lCNC^C0CO 

COt^CO>0'— it^iOiOi— liOt-'^t'-cDO 

^.-ii-ii-(C^cN(MC^cq(Nco(ro 

COfMQOiOOt^^^OOlMOOOCO 
,-1 i-H T-H CM (N C^ (M CO CO (M (M CO CO 

CC»-HOOGiO(NiOOO<M»Or^O(NCOC^ 
^.-<i-li-t(NCNt.q(MCOC0C^CMC0C0 



' C3 



^'5 



t:c3o3c805.So>Oo3o3 



TH(Nro-*>oot^ooroOT-i(Mc<5-*ira 



a a 

88 



o- c! . . a p< 
ggSoSS 

c^i ^ '^ ^ <N cs 
•H .-( ira CO 1-1 ph 



(N CS C^l 



.0>0 ,-H , ,,-1 






O u O O t." o 

;3 •' .'•< : 



< ■■■ 



OtO .-i M fj 



O CO O CO CO t 






»-t rH C^ CO 



^ CO IM CO 
r-d-H <NCO 



COO<Mt^ 

T|!t-^coco 



lO CO -^ lO 



COTt<(N ■* 
CO oi CO CO 



(N (NCOCO"* 



ocQoooo 

OOlNoicO 



00 t^ 00 00 

oi ^ ^ 05 



00 0O(NI^f~ 

CO 1-H t-^ CO o 
IM coco -*iO 



O CO CO CO »o 
C^ CO CO "^ u^ 






-COIN 



.-( T-(i-( (MCMC^CqCSIN CO-Ji-^iO 



<Nt-I 03 
05-^ CO 



rt T-l>-l 1-1 rt (N i-( (N C^ 



lOO 

' ai CO 



J O O 1-t T-< -H CO 



,r-lrf C^CO 



^ ^ t-l CO O CO 



i-li-l ooooco 



ocoo»oc 



rti-( rH^rti-IINCO 






Cm 






t^ & I 



a ^ 



-. . . t>> 

> '.2 : ;W 

• •*>J3 • 2 

53 






„ H 3 o" 

H^ g 3 -O .t) 

™ .- Li, ra >> ^ .-I , "-',►; £ ^ c3 






J Tt< lO i:© t-* 00 Oi O i-H <NCOf lO 



26 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAKCH-APEIL, 1913, 

Table 5. — Gage height, in feet, at stations on streams 



No. 



River and station. 













March. 












April. 


20 


21 


22 


23 


24 


25 


26 


27 


28 


29 


30 


31 


1 


2 


5.2 
3.0 
4.1 

7.6 


5.0 
2.7 
3.7 
7.0 


4.8 
2.4 
3.5 
6.5 


6.2 
2.2 
3.2 
8.2 


8.8 
3.8 
6.1 
5.9 


10.8 
8.0 
11.6 
16.2 


12.7 
14.1 
22.0 
26.4 


12.6 
14.8 
21.1 
31.9 


12.2 
14.1 

19.5 
29.5 


11.0 
12.5 
15.3 
23.5 


9.6 
10.2 
12.2 
19.0 


8.7 
8.2 
9.7 
15.4 


7.2 
6.9 
8.2 
13.2 


6.5 
5.7 
6.9 
11.4 


3.8 


3.7 


3.7 


3.4 


3.3 


3.0 


3.2 


6.9 


10.5 


6.8 


5.3 


4.9 


4.4 


4.0 


5.2 


5.2 


5.0 


4.7 


4.6 


4.6 


5.1 


9.0 


13.4 


9.4 


7.2 


6.4 


6.0 


5.6 


15.2 
8.4 
9.5 


15.0 
8.2 
9.1 


15.1 
8.0 
8.8 


15.0 
7.9 
8.5 


14.9 

7.8 
8.2 


14.8 
7.7 
9.0 


14.8 
8.0 
10.0 


20.2 
14.6 
16.2 


22.4 
18.7 
25.2 


19.1 
13.6 
20.2 


16.9 
10.8 
14.8 


16.4 
9.7 
12.3 


15.8 
9.2 
11.1 


15.3 
8.6 
10.2 


12.1 


11.8 


12.1 


11.9 


11.8 


11.6 


12.9 


19.5 


23.6 


19.1 


14.8 


13.1 


12.5 


11.9 


2.8 


2.6 


2.4 


2.2 


2.1 


2.1 


3.0 


14.5 


11.8 


5.8 


4.4 


3.7 


3.1 


2.8 


3.9 


3.7 


3.6 


3.5 


3.5 


3.3 


3.6 


7.0 


8.2 


5.9 


5.0 


4.6 


4.3 


4.0 


1.6 
2.1 


1.8 
2.1 


1.6 
2.0 


1.3 
1.8 


1.3 

1.5 


1.1 
1.3 


1.6 
2.2 


4.9 

7.4 


4.8 
8.5 


3.5 

5.7 


2.9 
4.3 


2.5 
3.6 


2.4 
3.1 


2.0 
2.7 


4.9 


4.7 


4.6 


4.4 


6.6 


13.2 


16.7 


17.4 


15.1 


12.0 


8.9 


6.8 


5.2 


5.7 


0.9 


0.7 


0.6 


0.5 


4.7 


15.5 








10.4 


3.0 


1.8 


1.6 


1.4 










2.3 


7.0 


13.0 


15.0 


16.1 


9.0 


7.0 


5.0 


3.0 


3.0 


10.2 


10.1 


9.9 


9.7 


9.9 


21.2 




51.8 






34.0 


30.0 


24.5 


20.2 


8.4 
3.6 


8.0 
3.7 


7.9 
4.0 


7.6 
3.9 


7.7 
4.0 


16.6 
21.0 




C46.5 


ois.'o 


aie.'o 


oii'o 


ois.'o 


26.0 


19.6 
(d) 


3.4 
10.6 


3.2 
10.5 


3.1 

10.5 


3.1 

10.4 


2.9 
10.3 


2.8 
10.2 


4.2 
10.7 


16.0 
17.9 


18.9 
19.2 


9.5 
18.2 


5.5 
17.4 


4.5 
13.6 


4.1 

n.o 


3.7 
10.8 


4.9 
3.5 
7.0 


4.5 
3.3 

7.0 


4.C 
3.2 

7.5 


4.6 
3.1 

7.4 


4.4 
3.0 
5.2 


4.4 
2.9 
4.9 


4.3 

2.8 
4.7 


10.0 
6.5 
11.8 


12.8 

11.6 

a35.0 


7.6 

7.2 

21.2 


6.1 
5.7 
12.1 


5.6 
4.6 
10.5 


5.1 
4.0 
9.1 


4.7 
3.6 
7.1 


5.7 


5.2 


4.8 


4.5 


4.1 


3. 7 


3.4 


7.6 


26.3 


15.9 


10.5 


7.6 


6.5 


5.8 


7.0 
3.4 
4.5 
4.8 


6.5 
3.2 
4.2 
4.6 


6.0 
3.1 
4.0 
4.6 


5.9 
3.0 
3.8 
4.2 


5.', 
2.8 
3.6 
4.0 


5.5 
2.8 
3.4 
3.9 


5.5 
2.8 
3.4 
5.0 


10.2 
10.0 
8.0 
14.1 


33.2 
16.3 
11.8 
17.2 


30.1 
G.6 
7.4 

10.5 


21.0 
4.9 
6.4 
7.3 


19.0 
4.2 
5.7 
6.3 


17.0 
3.8 
5.0 
5.5 


13.7 
3.4 
4.6 
5.0 


8.0 


7.3 


7.4 


7.0 


6.6 


6.1 


12.8 


29.5 


42.0 


39. S 


35.0 


35.3 


34.5 


33.0 


4.4 
1.6 
3.7 


4.5 
1.6 
3.8 


4.4 
1.6 
3.9 


4.8 
1.5 
4.2 


6.2 
1.6 
4.0 


21.9 

11.0 

3.C 


20.9 
C37.8 
29.1 


19.7 


17.4 


14.7 
24.6 
23.6 


12.0 
16.0 
20.1 


9.6 
12.0 
19.0 


8.3 
11.4 
17.0 


6.4 
11.1 
12.2 


"ss.'s 


'32.'2 


2.7 


2.8 


3.0 


3.0 


7.0 


024.0 


628.1 


622.2 


615. 7 


11. C 


9.1 


7.3 


6.8 


5.8 


2.8 


3.0 


3.0 


3.0 


4.8 


19.7 


<:34.6 


25.0 


19.2 


14.8 










11.3 
8.7 
11.3 


10.9 
8.8 
11.3 


11.5 
8.6 
15.5 


11.4 
8.7 
13.5 


11.3 

8.5 
14.0 


11.1 

8.5 
13.8 


21.0 
15.8 
19.5 


34. C 
35.2 
23.0 


33.4 
38.3 
24.5 


?3.5 
37.5 
25.8 


33.5 
37.2 
27.2 


27.3 
35.1 

28.8 


14.5 
26.8 
30.0 


12.2 
10.2 
30.6 


6.8 
13.4 


G.O 
12.2 


7.1 
11.9 


7.0 
13.4 


14.5 
13.6 


19.5 
18.3 


27.0 
21.4 


31.2 
23.0 


30.8 
24.8 


29.2 
27.8 


26.8 
31.0 


24.0 
30.2 


22.0 
29.2 


20.7 
28.2 



Allegheny: 

Redhouse, N. Y... 

Warren, Pa 

Franklin, Pa 

Freeport, Pa 

Tygart: 

Belington, W. Va. 

Fetterman, W. Va. 
Monongahela: 

Fairmont, W. Va. 

Greensboro, Pa 

Lower Lock No. 4, 

Pa. 
Upper Lock No. 2, 

Pa. 

West Fork, Enter- 
prise, W. Va. 
Cheat, Morgantown, 

W. Va. 
Youghiogheny: 

Confluence, Pa 

West Newton, Pa. 

Beaver, Beaver Falls, 
Pa. 

Mahoning, Youngs- 
town, Ohio. 

Tuscarawas, Canal Do- 
ver, Ohio. 

Muskingum: 

Zanesville, Ohio... 



Beverly, Ohio 

Mohican, Pomerene, 
Ohio. 



Little Kanawha: 

Creston, W. Va.. 

Upper Dam No. 
4, W. Va. 
New: 

Radford, Va 

Hinton, W. Va... 

Fayette, W.Va.. 

Kanawha: 

Kanawha 
W. Va. 

Charleston 

Greenbrier, Alderson. 

Gauley , Belva 

Elk, Clendenin 



Falls, 



Big Sandy (Upper 
Lock No. 3), Louisa, 

Ky. 

Scioto: 

Columbus, Ohio . . 

Chillicothe, Ohio.. 
Licking,Falmouth,Ky 
Miami: 

Dayton, Ohio 

Hamilton, Ohio. . . 
Kentucky: 

Highbridgc, Ky... 

Frankfort, Ky". . . . 
Green, Upper Lock 

No. 2, Ky, 
Wabash: 

Terre Haute, Ind . 

Mount Carmel, 111 . 



a Approximate. 6 Calculated from careful measurements. 



c Crest stage, not regular reading. 



HISTORY OF THE FLOOD. 

tributary to Ohio River for flood of March-Ajiril, 1913. 



27 



April. 



3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 .13 14 1,') 



6.1 
4.9 
5.9 
10.0 

4.0 

5.1 

1.-.. 2 
S.4 
11.0 



2, 
4.0 



3.3 

4.8 



1.3 

3.8 



15.5 
(d) 



3.4 
10. G 



4.6 
3.4 

6.2 



17.0 

11.5 

9.0 

30.9 



6.0 
4.0 
5.3 
9.2 

3.8 

5.0 

15.1 

8.2 
9.8 



2.( 
3.8 



2.8 
4.2 



1.6 
3.7 



14.0 
(d) 



3.2 
10.5 



4.6 
3.3 
5.1 



6.0 
3.1 

3.8 
4.5 



11.2 

8.5 
4.7 

9.5 

'13.0 

11.1 

8.6 

31.1 



6.6 
4.0 
5.1 
8.4 

3.8 



14.9 

8.0 
9.3 



2.4 
3.6 



2.5 
3.6 



1.8 
3.4 

17.5 
15.6 



3.2 
10.5 



4.4 
3.1 

4.9 



5.9 
3.0 
3 
4.3 



11.2 
11.0 
4.0 



10.8 

8.3 

31.2 



6.0 
4.0 
5.2 
8.3 



14.9 
7.9 
8.9 



2.1 
3.t 



2.0 
2.9 



1.9 
3.0 



16.1 



3.0 
10.4 



4.3 
2.9 
4.9 



5.5 
2.8 
3.6 
4.2 



8.8 
12.9 
3.5 



10.7 

8.3 

?1.1 



5.9 
4.0 
4.9 
8.2 



14.8 
7.9 
8.8 



2.0 
3.4 



1.8 
2.4 



1.4 

2.8 

16.7 
14.3 



2.9 
10.3 



4.2 

2.8 



3.6 

5.5 

2.8 
3.5 
4.0 



6.8 
10.9 
3.3 



10.5 

8.0 

31.0 



19.4 18.6 17.6 16.9 16.0 15.5 14. T 14.9 15.4 
27.2 26.4 25.'; 24.9 24.2 23.6 23.0 22, 



3 

4.6 

7.4 



14.8 
7.8 
8.4 



1.9 
3.4 



1 
2.2 



12.6 



2.9 
10.2 



4.2 
2 

4, 



5.3 
2.6 
3.3 
3.8 



5.4 
8.2 
3.1 



10.3 

7.9 
30.7 



5.4 
3.3 
4.2 
7.0 

3.5 



14.8 
7.8 
8.2 



1.8 
3.3 



1.6 
2.0 



0.8 
2.2 



11.4 
(d) 



2.8 
10.2 



4.2 
2.6 

4.5 



7.0 
2.6 
3.2 

3.8 



4.0 
7.1 
3.0 



10.2 

7.8 

30.3 



5.6 
3.1 
3.9 
6.5 

3.5 



14.8 

7. 



0.7 
2.0 

12.3 
10.5 



2.S 
10.2 



4.2 
2.6 

3.8 



3.0 

7.0 
2.6 
3.1 

3.8 



5.0 
6.0 
?.9 



10.1 
7.8 
29.9 



5.6 
3.0 
3.8 
6.3 



2.5 
3.0 



1.1 
1.6 



1.2 

2.0 

12.3 
10.3 



2.8 
10.2 



4.2 

2.6 
4.2 



2.8 

7.0 
2.5 
3.1 
3.7 



7.0 
6.6 
8.6 



10.2 
8.9 
29.0 



5.6 
2.ti 
4.5 
6.5 

3.5 



15.0 
7.8 
9.2 



2.9 
3.5 



2.1 

2.5 

13.0 

11.1 

(d) 



3.8 
11.0 



5.4 
2.9 
4.2 



3.0 

7.3 
2.9 
3.2 
4.2 



5.9 



6.7 
9.0 
4.0 



10.4 
8.0 
28.3 



5.3 
3.3 
4.5 
7.4 

3.5 



15. 2 
8.0 
9.8 



2.7 
3.5 

1.8 
2.1 

5.3 

1.6 

2.5 

12.8 
11.0 



4.3 
11.3 



8.0 
5.2 
9.8 



4.2 



8.0 
8.6 
4.4 
4.1 



5.8 
10.5 
4.5 



10.6 

8.2 

27.6 



5.2 
3.0 
4.2 

7.; 



15.2 
8.6 
10.0 



2.6 
4.9 



2.8 
2.8 



1.7 

2.0 

14.8 
12.2 



3.8 
11.0 



7, 

6.7 
17.9 



11.7 

12.0 
7.2 
4.4 
4.5 



8.7 
11.9 
4.3 



10.6 

8.2 

27.0 



5. 2 
2.7 
4.1 

7.5 

3.5 



15. 6 
8.2 
11.2 



2.3 
4.t 



3.2 
3.4 



1.7 
2.0 



12.9 



3.8 
10.9 



6.0 
6.0 
14.3 



11.7 

14.0 

7.8 

9 

6.1 



10.7 



7.6 
12.1 
4.0 



10.7 
8.2 
26.0 



Crest. 



Stage. Date. Time. 



cl2.7 
15.2 

e22.0 
31.9 

10.5 

«13.4 

23.6 
el8. 7 
«25.2 



16.2 
«8.2 



5.6 
9.7 



16.2 



51.8 



40.5 
e26.0 



20.4 
19.5 



15.0 
14.5 
36.5 



27.5 

34.8 
19.4 
15.0 
21.3 



42.8 



22.9 
37.8 
34.1 



34.6 

«34.6 

38.3 

631.2 



Mar. 26 

..do 

..do 

Mar. 27 

Mar. 28 

Mar. 27 

...do 

Mar. 28 
...do..... 

..do.... 



Mar. 27 
Mar. 28 



Mar. 27 
...do..... 



..do 



Mar. 28 



Mar. 27 



.do. 



Mar. 28 
..do.... 



Mar. 27 
Mar. 28 
..do.... 



...do.... 

..do.... 
Mar. 27 
..do.... 
..do.... 



Mar. 25 
Mar. 26 
Mar. 27 

Mar. 26 

...do 

Mar. 27 
Mar. 28 
Apr. 5 



12.00 m... 
5.00 p. m . 
8.00 a.m.. 
6.30 a.m. 

7.00 a.m. 

5.00p.m. 

7.00 p.m. 
8.00 a.m.. 
8.00 a.m. 



3.00 p.m. 
8.00 a.m.. 



2.00 p.m. 
Dur inj 

night. 
6.00 a.m. 



12.00 m... 



Early 
morning. 



2.00 p.m.. 



5.00 a.m.. 
6.00 a.m.. 



8.00 p.m.. 

10.00p.m. 

Early 

morning, 

2.00 a.m.. 

4.00 p.m.. 
6.00 p.m.. 
3.00 p.m.. 
During 
night. 

12.00 m... 



12.00 m... 
11.00'a.m. 
1.30 p.m.. 

1.00 a.m.. 



7.00 a.m. 
5.00 a.m. 
8.00 a.m. 



' Gage washed away. 



„ .„. . 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.2 e31.2 Mar. 27 7.00a.m... 
6 22.3 22.0 21.7 21.4 21.1 31.0 Mar. 30 7.00 a.m.. 

e Highest recorded, may not be crest 



No. 



40 
41 



28 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

Table 5. — Gage height, in feet, at stations on streams 



No. 


River and station. 


March. 


April. 


20 


21 


22 


23 


24 


25 


26 


27 


28 


29 


30 


31 


1 


2 


4?. 


White, West Branch 

Elhston, Ind. 
White, East Branch 

Shoals 










11.8 

8.8 

11.2 
17.5 

20.6 
1.5 

4.2 
12.3 
1.?.7 

28.5 


23.8 

21.6 

10.7 
16.2 

20.1 
l.C 

3.5 
11.2 
12.0 
28.4 


27. S 

29.5 

22.0 
25.0 

31.6 
2.1 

3.2 
10.1 
10.7 

29.4 


31.3 

37.0 

38.8 
39.3 

47.3 
5.2 

7.3 
13.3 

13.7 
32.1 


30.4 

42.2 

45.2 
42.7 

50.5 
4.0 

20.9 
•25.4 
14.0 
33.0 


28.6 

41.7 

46.2 
42.8 

50.5 

4.3 

20.1 
31.2 
15.7 
33.3 


26.5 

39.6 

48.2 
43.5 

49.6 
3.3 

12.1 
33.1 
16.0 
32.7 


24.1 

36.8 

47.9 
44.4 

49.3 
2.5 

7.8 
32.9 
16.5 
32.1 


23.0 

33.8 

44.7 
44.8 

49.1 
2.0 

5.7 
2G.9 
17.2 
31.3 


22.4 

30.5 

38.6 
44.9 

49.1 
1.6 

4.7 
17.1 
17.7 
30.5 


43 


6.2 

13.7 

28.5 

32.1 

1.8 

4.8 
17.5 
17.5 
25.4 


6.0 

9.9 
23.4 

30.9 
1.2 

4.2 
13.1 

18.5 
20. 3 


7.4 

10.5 
21.5 

29.7 
2.4 

4.5 
12.9 
18.0 
27.5 


8.0 

9.9 
17.4 

24.4 

1.8 

4.8 
12.9 
IG.O 
28.0 


44 
45 

46 

47 

48 
49 
50 
51 


Cumberland: 

Cellna, Tenn 

Nashville 

Clarksville 

French Broad, Ashe- 

ville, N. C. 
Tennessee: 

Knoxville, Term.. 

Chattanooga 

Florence, Ala 

Johnsonville,Tenn 



HISTORY OF THE FLOOD. 

tributary to Ohio Biver for flood of Mcmh-April, 191,3 -Continued. 



29 



April. 


Crest. 


No. 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


Stage. 


Date. 


Time. 


20.2 

28.0 

19.0 
44.8 

49.1 
l.C 

4.0 
12.5 

17.9 
30.0 


19.8 

26.8 

10.2 
44.1 

49.0 
1.4 

3.4 
10.9 
17.0 
30.9 


20.0 

25.2 

8.7 
40.0 

48.8 
1.4 

3.2 

9.9 

15.3 

31.4 


19.6 

22.5 

7.8 
27.5 

40.5 
1.2 

3.0 

9.2 

11.5 

31.7 


18.7 

21.1 

7.3 
15.3 

38.2 
1.1 

2.7 

8.5 

9.1 

31.4 


17.0 

20.9 

6.9 
12.5 

29.3 
1.0 

2.5 
8.0 

7.7 
20.0 


16.0 

19.7 

6.3 
11.8 

23.7 
1.0 

2.4 

7.6 

7.0 

27.5 


17. 

19.0 

5.7 
11.4 

20.0 
0.9 

2.3 

7.2 

6. 3 

25.9 


18.0 

18.0 

6.5 
13.8 

19.1 
1.7 

2.3 

6.9 

6.0 

25.4 


21.7 

17.4 

7.0 
13.0 

19.6 
3.7 

2.4 
6.8 
5.9 
23.7 


22.6 

17.9 

7.2 
12.0 

17.5 
3.5 

2.9 
6.7 
5.5 

21.8 


22.9 

19.3 

7.4 
11.8 

15.9 
2.7 

4.2 
7.0 
5.2 
19.9 


22.0 

19.9 

8.1 
11.0 

14.7 
2.8 

4.4 
7.8 
5.2 
18.0 


031.3 

42.2 

48.6 
44.9 

50.9 
a 5. 2 

21.0 

33.3 

a IS. 5 

33.3 


Mar. 27 

Mar. 28 

Mar. 30 
Apr. 2 

Mar. 28 
Mar. 27 

Mar. 28 
Mar. 30 
Mar. 21 
Mar. 29 


7.00 a.m... 

7.00 a.m... 

2.30 p.m... 
7.00a. ra... 

5.00 p.m... 
8.00 a.m... 

3.00 p.m... 
12.00 m... 
7.00 a.m... 
7.00 a.m... 


42 

43 

44 
45 

46 
47 

48 
49 
50 
51 



a Highest recorded; may not be crest. 



30 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

It should be noted that at Cairo the flood of March-April, 1913, 
was 0.8 foot higher than the previous maximum (54.0 feet April 6-7, 
1912), and 3.0 feet higher than the 1884 flood, whereas at Paducah 
the 1913 flood surpassed the previous maximum, the 1884 flood, bj 
only 0.1 foot. It is also interesting to note that at Cairo the flood of 
1912 was 2.2 feet higher than the flood of 1884, whereas at Paducah 
the flood of 1912 was 4.4 feet lower than that of 1884. 

The distinguishing feature of the recent flood at and below Evans- 
ville is the long duration of the stage. (See PI. IV, p. 24.) The maxi- 
mum stage at Cairo occurred on April 4 and 8, 1913, and during these 
five days the stage was within 0.1 foot of the maximum. 

The daily discharge during the recent flood at six stations on Ohio 
River is given in Tables 13 and 14 (pp. 52, 66), and summaries of the 
flood-flow records are given in Tables 15, 16, and 17 (pp. 75, 78, 80). 
Unfortunately it is impossible to give discharge data for the tributaries 
because practically no discharge rating tables are available which 
cover the extremely high stages reached during this flood. The 
study of the distribution of the run-off over the drainage basin and 
the effect of the various tributaries on the main stream will have to 
be made from the rainfall map (Plate III, p. 20), the gage-height 
records on the tributaries, and the discharge data at the six stations 
on the main stream. 

The maximum daily discharge during the 1913 flood at the six 
stations given in Table 17 (p. 80) ranged from 448,000 second-feet 
(18.1 second-feet per square mile) at Wheeling, W. Va., to 769,000 
second-feet (8.49 second-feet per square mile) at Louisville, Ky. The 
maximum daily rate of flow was greater at Catlettsburg, Ky., than 
at Cincinnati, Ohio, 151 miles farther downstream, and was greater 
at Louisville, Ky., than at Evansville, Ind., 183 miles below. These 
are not necessarily inconsistencies, however, and are due mainly to 
differences in channel capacity. 

The total discharge for the flood ranged from 252,000 million cubic 
feet at Wheeling to 1,210,000 million cubic feet at Evansville. It 
will be noted (PL III) that the run-off from the area over which the pre- 
cipitation was more than 10 inches enters the Ohio above Louisville. 

The discharge is more fully discussed on pages 47-84 and a com- 
plete statement of the enormous damage caused by this flood is 
presented on pages 84-87. 

Typical street scenes in Hamilton, Ohio, during and after the flood 
are shown in Plate VII. Plates VIII and IX show flood views of 
Wheeling, W. Va., and Belpre, Ohio. 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 PLATE VII 




,1. HIGH STREET, HAMILTON, OHIO, AT DAYBREAK MARCH 26, 1913. 
Note the height of flood on posts of boulevard lights. 




1!. SAME STREET AFTER THE FLOOD. 
Looking tow/ard Miami River. 



O. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATFR-SUPPLY PAPER 314 PLATE VMI 




A. "THE ISLAND," WHEELING, W. VA., DURING THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
"The Island" is the chief residential section of Wheeling. 




B. VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON MARKET STREET, WHEELING, W. VA., FROM BALTIMORE & OHIO 
RAILROAD VIADUCT, DURING THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

Corner of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad station at extreme right. 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 31 

FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1907. 

CAUSES. 

Tho flood of March- April, 1907, was caused by excessive rains and 
melting sno^y on the drainage areas above Pittsburgh, and by heavy 
rains on the tributaries that enter the Ohio from the north below 
Pittsburgh. These conditions produced the high stage at Pitts- 
Inu'gh and high stages on all the northern tributaries. This flood 
may be briefly described as an up-river rise which passed down the 
river on top of bank-full or more than bank-full stages at all points, 
which were produced, primarily, by floods from the northern tribu- 
taries and, to a lesser extent, by medium floods on the southern 
tributaries. The soil had been saturated by a flood in January, and 
the high temperatures during the rain of March 4-14 had decidedly 
increased the run-ofi' by melting the snow on the ground. 

PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATTJRE. 

The daily and total precipitation for the period March 4-14, 1907, 
which caused the peak rise of the flood of March- April, 1907, are 
shown in Table 6, but not the entire amount of precipitation which 
caused the whole flood. The totals, therefore, are not comparable 
with the total discharge during the flood as given in Tables 15 and 
16 (pp. 75, 78). The stations are the same as those used for Table 3, 
where records were available, otherwise the nearest stations main- 
tained during the period were used. The numbers show correspond- 
ing stations. This table is chiefly valuable for comparison with 
Tables 3 and 9, which show the rainfall for the floods of 1913 and 1884, 
respectively, at the same points. No rainfall map was made for this 
flood. 



Table 6. — Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin, 

Mar. 4-14, 1907. 



No. 


Station. 










March 












Total. 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


1 


Ohio. 
Toledo 




T. 
0.05 


"t." 

0.02 
T. 
T. 


0.20 
.03 
T. 
.12 
.04 
.10 






0.23 
.28 
.18 
.35 
.25 
.12 
.29 
.25 
.38 
.11 


'o.'os' 

".'62' 
.03 

.05 


0.20 
.73 
.95 
.32 
.41 

2.60 
.82 
.61 

'".il 

.15 
1.02 
1.22 


0.21 

3.45 
2.33 
.31 
.36 
4.59 
3.10 
1.98 
1.67 
1.68 

.10 

.46 

2.10 


T. 
0.99 
.01 
.01 
T. 
.01 
.18 

"."67' 
.41 

"."32' 
T. 


0.84 


9 


Circleville 








5.53 


■^ 


Columbus 




0.01 
.03 


0.05 


3.58 


4 




T. 


T. 
T. 
.04 
.04 


I.IG 


'^ 




1.06 


fi 




0.25 


"tV" 


.09 
T. 


7.82 


7 


Dayton 


4.46 


8 


Bangorville 




T. 


.12 


2.96 


(\ 


Marion ... 










2.72 


10 










.05 

.05 
T. 
T. 


.04 


.16 


2.70 


n 


Indiana. 
South Bend a 






T. 


.51 


1? 


Terre Haute 




.60 
T. 


2.40 


13 


Anderson 




T. 


T. 


.26 




3.58 



a Near Notre Dame. 



32 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAKCH-APKIL, 1913. 



Table 6. — Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin, 
Mar. 4~U, -Z 907— Continued. 



No. 


Station. 


March. 


Total. 


4 


6 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


14 


Indiana— ContinuQd. 
Fort Wayne -. . . 








0.03 
.03 
.01 




0.37 
.2 
.21 


"t." 

0.30 


0.55 
.43 
.96 


0.62 
1.73 
1.19 


0.05 


1.62 


l.-i 


Evansville 






0.47 




0.26 
.13 


3.12 


Ifi 




0.12 




2 92 


17 


Elliston 








IS 


Madison 


.05 
.10 


0.54 
.03 


T. 
.01 
T. 
T. 
.19 

"'.'64" 

'".'os' 


.25 
.29 

:o2 

T. 
.06 
T. 
.03 

.30 
.18 
.27 
.23 

.44 
.44 

.46 
.71 
.55 


0.05 
T. 


.07, 
(6) 

.20 
.60 
.05 
.50 
.54 

"'.'28' 


.31 
.34 

.04 
.11 

"'."io" 

.01 

.71 
.33 

.64 

1.01 

.48 

.22 

.49 
.74 
.18 

.05 


1. 55 

.02 
.25 
.05 
.73 

.05 
'"."63" 

""."oe" 


2.35 

.58 

.05 
.13 
.01 
.81 
T. 

.16 
.91 
.70 
.13 
.78 
.11 


.75 
3.24 

.01 
.06 
.06 
.08 
1.58 

1.68 
1.08 
1.42 

.69 
2.03 

.35 


.32 

1.50 
.48 

1.42 

1.00 
.04 

1.48 

.80 
1.11 
.70 

.01 

.32 
.34 
.12 

1.13 


5.87 


19 


|WashiBgtonJ^3,,,. 

Illinois. 
La Salle 


4.90 
.34 


?1 


Peoria 


.10 


.01 


1.27 


9.?. 


Chicago 


.23 


fH 


Springfield 


.19 
T. 


.02 

.40 
.14 
.52 
.49 
.09 
.26 


2.43 


94 


Cairo 


2.35 


?5 


Kentucky. 
MaysvlUe 


4.85 


9fi 


Lexington 


.23 


3.67 


77 


Falmouth 


4.97 


?-S 


Frankfort 




.02 

'".'oe" 


"."45" 

T. 
.02 

.42 

.22 


3.60 


?c» 


Louisville 


.19 


4.58 


80 


Beatty ville 


2.98 


V 


Tennessee. 
Chattanooga 




1.75 


s? 


KnoxvUle . . 














2.58 


S3 


Nashville 








.51 


T. 

.17 

.25 

.02 
.57 
.11 

1.16 


.65 

.12 

.04 

.80 
1.53 
.33 

.91 


2.50 


34 


Missouri. 
St. Louis 






.20 
T. 

"t." 

T. 


1.27 


35 


Michigan. 
Detroit 






T. 

T. 
.03 
.12 

.03 


.04 

.12 
.11 
.12 

.01 


.34 


36 
37 

38 


Pennsylvania. 

HaiTisburg 

Pittsburgh 

Erie '. 


T. 
.01 
.01 

.01 


.18 
.06 
.01 

.05 


".'6i' 

.02 


.66 
.25 
T. 

.45 





2.10 
2.91 

.82 


39 


West Virginia. 
Parkersburg 


3.77 



a. Near Shoals. 



6 Amount included in following day. 



The areas of greatest rainfall are indicated indirectly by the hydro- 
graphs of the Ohio River and its more important tributaries presented 
in Plate XI (p. 34). These areas are at the headwaters above Pitts- 
burgh, on the tributaries that enter the river from the north below 
Pittsburgh, and in the northern section of Kentucky. The tem- 
perature during and preceding the heavy rain was much above nor- 
mal, so that the snow on the ground melted quickly and ran rapidly 
into the streams during the period of maximum rainfall. The rain- 
fall over West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, drained by Kanawha, 
Guyandotte, and Big Sandy rivers, was not heavy. 



FLOOD OF MARCir-APHII., 1907. 33 

GENERAL FEATURES. 

There were two floods on Ohio River during 1907, the first in Jan- 
uary and the second hi March. The January flood had hardly passed 
into the Mississippi before the rains that were to cause the second 
flood began over the liead waters of the Ohio. Tlie two floods difl'ered 
materiafly in character, m that the January flood was very moderate 
above the mouth of the Kanawha, while the March flood was very 
much the reverse. Stages beyond all previous records were reached 
at Pittsburgh and on Youghiogheny River. The conditions preceding 
the precipitation above Pittsburgh for the two floods did not differ 
greatly, except that immediately preceding the rains of March 13 
and 14 the ground was covered with from 4 to 8 inches of moist, heavy 
snow, while in January there was no snow immediately preceding the 
rains. The rainfall was somewhat greater during the January flood, 
but hi March differences in distribution combined with the high 
temperatures and the rapid melthig of the snow over the Allegheny, 
Kiskiminitas, and Youghiogheny basins produced a volume of water 
that more than compensated for the deficiency in precipitation. The 
greater part of the heavy rams fell on March 13 and 14, when the snow 
on the Allegheny and Monongahela, under the influence of abnormally 
high temperatures, was melting rapidly and running into the streams. 
From the mouth of the Kanawha to the Scioto the stages of the two 
floods were practicaUy the same; below the mouth of the Scioto the 
March stages were 1 to 5 feet lower than those in January, on account 
of the small amount of water contributed by Kanawha, Guyandotte, 
and Big Sandy rivers, in whose basins in West Vh'ginia and eastern 
Kentucky the rainfall was comparatively light. 

An examination of the rainfall and gage recoids shows that the 
March flood at Pittsburgh can be attributed to the enormous volume 
of water caused by the excessive rains and melting of snow on March 
12-14 over the Kiskimmitas and Youghiogheny basins. The Monon- 
gahela contributed largely, but no water of consequence came from 
the Allegheny above the Kiskiminitas. The crest stage at Pitts- 
burgh was 35.5 feet, exceeding by half a foot all previous records and 
the 1913 crest stage by 5.1 feet. The flood of 1907 established the 
fact that a disastrous flood can occur at Pittsburgh without the aid 
of Allegheny River above the Kiskiminitas. 

From the mouth of Beaver River to Parkersburg, Vf . Va., the flood 
was remarkable for the rapidity of the increase in stage. From 
Parkersburg to Cairo the conditions were similar to those which pre- 
vailed in the January flood except that the maximum stages below 
Portsmouth were from 1 to 5 feet lower than in January. 

An examination of Plate XI shows that Muskingum, Scioto, Miami, 
and Wabash rivers, all tributaries from the noitli, were at more than 
3«3o°— wsp 334—13 3 



34 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APRIL, 1913. 



ordinary flood stages, and the southern tributaries were at compara- 
tively low flood stages. Note the stages of the Kanawha at Charles- 
ton, Big Sandy at Louisa (probably affected by backwater after 
March 15), the Licking at Falmouth, the Kentucky at Fiankfort, 
the Green at Lock No. 2 (under backwater), and the Cumberland and 
Tennessee at Clarksville and Johnsonville, respectively. The low 
stages on the southern tributaiies had much to do with decreasing 
the flood stage below Portsmouth, as large volumes of water passed 
from the main Ohio into the lower reaches of the southern tributaries, 
thus decreasing the maximum stages along the Ohio. 

The Pittsburgh Flood Commission, in its report, states that if the 
43 reservoirs investigated had been in operation above Pittsburgh the 
crest stage at Wheeling during the flood of March- April, 1907, would 
have been reduced 14.5 feet, which would have made the stage 35.6 
feet or 0.4 foot below the danger line. 

Much of the discussion both for and against the use of reservoirs 
for flood prevention has been based largely on philosophic speculation, 
and many arguments have been advanced in substantiation of pre- 
conceived opinions, but as the conclusions of the Pittsburgh Flood 
Commission are based on careful studies they should be given full 
consideration in systematic investigations of flood control. 

STAGE AND DISCHARGE. 

Tables 7 and 8 give daily gage heights taken from records of the 
United States Geological Survey, the United States Weather Bureau, 
and the United States Engineer Corps, for periods sufficiently long 
to cover the entire flood of March- April, 1907. Graphic representa- 
tions of these gage heights appear on Plates X and XL The gage 
heights represent one reading each day taken about 7 or 8 a. m. So 
far as records were available the stations used are the same as those 
used for Tables 4 and 5. 

Table 7. — Gage height, in feet, at stations on Ohio River during flood of March-April, 

1907. 











03 
> 


> 


> 




2 






'> 




■a 
a 








nj 


s 


> 


^' 


.s 


^ 


>> 

w 







6 

5 


*T^ 


•a 
c 


a 






Date. 


.a 
Ef 

3 

S 




bo 

3 


.0 


1 

.g 

K 





1 

P-t 


'2 

1 




a 
.9 

1 
- 


3 



M 

> 




£3 
> 




i 
§ 

'0 


0" 



Mar. 1 


5.0 


8.6 


8.1 


10.0 


12.4 


18.0 


19.0 


19.5 


19.3 


22.3 


22.4 


20.5 


19.0 


21.3 


29.1 


2 


5.2 


9.1 


8.3 


9.8 


13.7 


19.8 


20.6 


21.2 


20.2 


22.8 


23.2 


22.3 


20.8 


24.0 


30.8 


3 


6.1 


10.2 


9.2 


10.4 


14.7 


20.4 


23.0 


24.0 


23.2 


25.6 


24.5 


23.9 


22.1 


26.8 


32.7 


4 


7.7 


12.0 


10.4 


10.9 


14.9 


22.9 


24.0 


25.4 


24.9 


27.7 


26.6 


24.7 


23.6 


29.0 


34.5 


5 


6.5 


11.3 


11.4 


12.0 


16.5 


22.8 


23.8 


25.2 


25.3 


28.6 


28.9 


25.4 


24.7 


30.5 


35.8 


6 


5.4 


10.2 


10.3 


12.0 


16.8 


22.2 


23.0 


24.4 


25.0 


28.9 


29.8 


26.3 


25.5 


31.4 


36.5 


7 


5.2 


9.8 


9.6 


11.1 


15.7 


21.6 


22.5 


24.0 


24.4 


28.3 


29.4 


27.2 


26.0 


31.8 


37.0 


S 


4.9 


9.3 


9.2 


10.7 


14.5 


20.4 


21.4 


23.0 


23.7 


27.7 


28.4 


27.8 


26.6 


32.3 


37.4 


9 


4.7 


8.8 


8.8 


10.0 


13.4 


19.2 


20.0 


21.7 


22.5 


26.6 


27.4 


27.8 


27.2 


32.6 


37.7 


10 


5.3 


9.2 


8.5 


9.6 


13.3 


19.6 


19.9 


21.0 


21. S 


25.3 


26.6 


27.5 


26.5 


32.6 


37.8 




FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS (GAGE 

Shows the distance of each statior 
at each s 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 PLATE X 




FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS <GAGE HEIGHTS) ^OR 15 STATIONS ON OHIO RIVER DURING THE 

FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1907. 

Shows the distance of each station below Pittsburgh and the danger line (indicated by horizontal arrows) 

at each station. For gage heights see Table /, page 3*- 



POfirsMocr//. o/f/o 



M/iysi//L/.£, ^y. 



£i 



FLOOD HYDROGR/ 

The hydrographs ar 
most effect. A« 
cothe station, a 
for 1907. Sciot 
taries are arran 
are tributary b^ 



LOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1907. 

e flow from the tributaries has the 
Scioto takes the place of the Chilli- 
y three daily readings at Hamilton 
The hydrographs of these tribu- 
entioned, even though the streams 
36. 



. S. OEOLOGICAL SURVE 




( 
































" 


'ATER 


su 


PPLY 


=APER 334 


PLATE 


" 


OAYTON, OHIO 
HAMILTON. OHIO 

FALMOUTH, KY. 

CINCINNATI. OHIO 
FRANHFORT, HY. 


lOU 12 13 14 IS 15 17 18 Id 20 2\ 7P 91 « « « ,T :,fl ^ ^ ^. . ,*^'''> . . 1 








/ 


~\ 


\, 



















































1 


I 




% 


•V 






Wa 


M/ 


ff. 




































_ 














" 


t 


^ 


\ 


?(? 














































^_ 


I 


r 






\ 


\ 






















































.« 




s 


4ii 


i^ 


c__ 










































y^ 


/ 


/ 








^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


































/ 


/ 






















'v 


\ 




























4 


' 




























■^ 


i 


■» 


















- 


— 






20 






























s 


















1^ 








V 






\ 


\ 

m 


y 


















































64 








-a 


-.( 


ucn 




























a 












"/ 


/ 


^ 














■^ 


N 


Is 






















- 








/ 


/ 


-^ 
























\ 


\ 


















LOU/SWLL£, HY. 
LOCK NO.Z.fKY. 

EVANSVILL€,tND. 

MOUNT CA/fM£L./ LI. 

MOUNT VERNON. /NO. 
CLARKSV/U£.T£NN. 

JOHNSONVlLLEJENff 

CHESTER. ILL 

MOUNT VCflNON, INO. 
CAfRO, ILL. 






4- 


/ 






JO 










- 




- 


— . 











\ 


% 








- 














pn 


/ 


/■ 


^ 
ff 


-' 
























-^ 


^ 


1 


^ 




















"■ 








/ 


/ 






























^ 


N 


\ 
















M 








> 






















_ 


^ 
















% 


=> 
N 




























/ 


■^ 


>- 












- 












b 


>^ 






































in/ 


7 


y 


^ 




























N 


•^ 


\ 


















- 


- 


-^ 


/ 








































% 


> 






\ 


\ 






/' 


^ 




<o 


-- 




X 


^ 






































N 


y 






^ 
















\ 
































~- 






y 












■^ 


^ 


Si 


JU 


s 

^ 


^ 


'^ 


g. 


^ 


^ 


ya 




































- 


















- 


,i 


>s 


•N 


\ 


^ 


S2 


- 












- 


~- 


- 






y 


> 








































- 


~ 














- 


_ 














- 




«£ 


/S. 


'ft 
















— 










"^ 






























- 


















•^ 


































^ 


/ 


> 




























\ 


% 


^1 












- 


- 




7 


^ 


--' 
































^ 


> 


-1 


^ 


><;- 


ta 


















































L 






^ 



PLOOD HVOROGRAPHS .GAGE HEIGHTS. .OR STATIONS ON OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARV STREAMS DURING THE l-^^Jll'^XZ^'JZ' 
The hyd.o,.aphs are, as a .u,e, arranged in downstream order and t^e tributaries are .^oupedaboe , 0H,o R,ver -^rurbu"';'^n''.;i VX "ITes t.e place of .He CK,H^ 
most effect. As far as possible the stations and tributaries are the f'^„^i'^M°ami as there is no record at Chillicothe for 1907 and only three da.ly '"^rngs VheseT ibu 
cothe station, and the ?)ayton station replaces '^« ^'7''°" ^'/Ji^th M^am below C ^ ?nnat° Lnd the Wabash below Mount Vernon' JHe hydrogr Phs o «e J ^^"^ 
or 1907. Scioto River is tributary to the Ohio t>elow Po't^'^"^^ ^^^ ,he tributary streams upon Ohio River stages at the stations nje"*!''""'- '"" """S^ 
tanes are arranged out of their natural place to ='^°"*^^X/'. 'Lb/ horizontal arrows. For gage heights see Tables 7 and 8, pages 34, 36- 
are tributary below these stations. Danger line stages indicatea oy ■ 



ill 



FLOOD OF MAlUMl-Al'Rll,, 1007. 



35 



Table 7. — Gage height, in feel, at stations on Ohio Rivei during flood of Mardi Aj)ril, 

/907— Continued. 











C3 
> 


C3 

> 


03 

> 




d 






>> 




■6 

a 






Date. 


S3 
1 


1 


> 

bio 

.3 




1 

s 

a 
'S 


a 
3 

.3 
1 


1 

B 

2 


si 
O 

1 

B 

o 


w 

03 


.2 
2 

o 

a 
a 
'o 

q 


o 


■6 

1 

>■ 


s 

o 


1 


l-H 




!U 


P3 


S: 


e^ 


tn 


O 


^ 


^ 


o 


►J 


a 


1^ 


Ph 


" 


Mar. 11 


5.6 


9.5 


9.3 


11.9 


15.8 


21.7 


22.5 


23.6 


22.8 


26.3 


27.3 


27.3 


25.7 


32.0 


37.5 


12 


9.8 


13.0 


9.5 


12.2 


18.4 


23.1 


23.8 


24.9 


24.4 


27.3 


27.4 


27.2 


25.0 


31.0 


36.9 


13 


12.7 


17.9 


17.5 


18.0 


22.7 


28.0 


28. 6 


31.5 


31.0 


41.0 


36.9 


27.4 


26.3 


30.1 


36.3 


14 


30.8 




37.9 


37.0 


34.3 


36.6 


37.2 


39.5 


39.7 


50.3 


48.5 


31.3 


28.8 


30.8 


37.1 


15 


35.1 


47.1 


47.8 


48.1 


46.4 


48.4 


49.0 


52.2 


48.2 


54.1 


54.4 


36.3 


33.5 


31.7 


38.2 


16 


22.8 


37.8 


48.9 


51.4 


52.4 


55.2 


57.2 


58.6 


55.1 


57.6 


57.0 


39.0 


36.3 


33.9 


39.9 


17 


15.7 


25.8 


38.0 


50.9 


54.7 


57.9 


59.8 


60.5 


58.3 


60.2 


58. 7 


40.9 


38.8 


36.0 


41.5 


IS 


13.4 


20.5 


27.9 


43.6 


54.8 


58.4 


60.4 


60.8 


59.2 


61.6 


60.1 


42.0 


40.4 


37.6 


42.7 


19 


12.5 


19.1 


22.8 


40.0 


52.7 


57.2 


59.6 


59.8 


59.0 


62.1 


61.2 


42.7 


41.7 


38.8 


43.6 


20 


21.0 


26.7 


25.1 


35.0 


48.7 


54.5 


56.4 


58.1 


57.8 


61.3 


61.5 


43.2 


42.7 


39.8 


44.3 


21 


20.2 


29.7 


31.8 


34.2 


44.9 


50.6 


52.3 


55. 6 


55.1 


59.8 


61.2 


43.5 


43.5 


40.7 


44.9 


22 


15.6 


23.4 


29.3 


34.7 


42.7 


47.7 


49.0 


52.4 


52.9 


57.5 


60.4 


43.7 


44.2 


41.4 


45.5 


23 


11.8 


18.7 


23.0 


32.0 


40.5 


45.5 


47.0 


51.0 


50.5 


54.8 


58.9 


43.8 


44.8 


41.9 


45.9 


24 


10.1 


15.7 


17.9 


26.0 


36.8 


43.0 


44.0 


46.8 


47.6 


52.3 


56.8 


43.6 


45.0 


42.2 


4ti.l 


25 


9.3 


14.6 


15. 8 


20.4 


31.3 


37.7 


39.6 


40.0 


44.8 


49.4 


54.4 


43.2 


45.0 


42.3 


46.1 


26 


8.2 


13.2 


13.9 


16.6 


25.1 


31.6 


33.5 


36.6 


40.3 


45.7 


51.4 


42.7 


44.6 


42.2 


46.0 


27 


7.9 


14.6 


13.0 


14.5 


20.0 


26.0 


27.2 


31.3 


34.8 


41.0 


47.7 


41.9 


43.8 


42.0 


45.8 


28 


9.3 


17.6 


16.5 


13.4 


16.9 


21.0 


23.8 


25.8 


29.1 


35.3 


42.9 


41.0 


43.3 


41.5 


45.5 


29 


11.0 


19.1 - 


18.9 


16.1 


16.5 


20.4 


20.5 


22.3 


24.6 


30.1 


37.0 


39.6 


41.8 


40.7 


45.1 


30 


10.5 


18.4 


19.7 


19.1 


19.0 


22.0 


21.9 


22.2 


22.2 


26.3 


31.0 


37.8 


40.1 


39.7 


44.5 


31 


9.3 


16.0 


18.0 


19.4 


20.7 


23.0 


24.0 


24.0 


23.0 


24.7 


26.1 


34.9 


37.6 


38.3 


43.8 


Apr. 1 

9 
























31.1 
26.7 
23.1 
21.0 
20.1 

19.9 
19.7 
21.2 
18.5 
17.7 

17.6 
18.5 
19.6 
20.1 
19.8 


34.5 
30.2 
25.8 
22.3 
19.6 

18.9 
18.7 
19.0 
18.2 
17.5 

17.1 
17.6 
18.5 
19.4 
19.1 


36.5 
34.4 
31.4 
27.9 
24.7 

22.4 
21.2 
20.9 
20.3 
19.7 

19.6 
20.0 
20.6 
21.0 
21.2 


42.8 
























41.5 


3 
























39.9 


4 
























37.6 


5 
























35.0 


6 
























32.5 


7 
























31.0 


8 
























30.4 


9 
























29.6 


10 
























29.0 


11 
























28.8 


12 
























29.0 


13 
























29.3 


14 














"* 










29.9 


15 
























30.5 


Crest: 


























Stage. 


35.5 


47.1 


50.1 


51.6 


54.8 


58.4 


60.4 


60.8 


59.2 


62.1 


61.6 


43.8 


45.0 


42.3 


46.2 


Date. 


15 


15 


15 


16 


18 


18 


18 


18 


18 


18 


20 


23 


24^25 


25 


24 


Time. 


5 


(a) 


9 


2.30 


(a) 


(o) 






(0) 


11 


10.30 


(a) 1 (a) 


(a) 


4 




a.m. 


p.m. 


p.m. 






p.m. 


a. m. 


p.m. 



a Hlgbest recorded — may not be crest. 



36 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAKfiH-APEIL, 1913. 



^ 






0:5 






a 

^ 






r-c T-Hi-l^ (N 



0«5 






C<<000 
oioOTji 



r-(i-l(M ,H Ol 



(M OOOiO 

r-^ CO CO CO 



0(MCO-*0 
Oi'^ C^ CO o 



Tt<OiO 

00 -^ »o 



IMC3 .-H 



r-1,-1 IM^rH 



COOOOO COCO 

ai oi t~- CO oi 



i-l M -^ t^ 
t>^COG0lC 



C^OOCOCO 



coo 
c>c^ 



t^ O lO 
coco CO 



coco i-H —1 



ocn >o (M(N 

CO O COCO'Ct^ 



OCOCO 
OOiO 



cooo-* 

"fflCOOOCJ 



<N (NIMCOCO 



CD CO 



CO CO CO 
00 o6»o 



lO o>-i 
lo oioo 



IMO 

to o 



t^coco t^ 

CO rH "^ Oi 



O t- O T-^ •* 

CO C/5 T-H t^ 00 






■* COUJ 



1-1 <N i-Ht-l 



•ooo 
^co 



Tf OO 



OOiO OOM OS 

o-^ Tji or>^ 



com^o 



00t-I(NOO 
05 -^ ^ COiO 



05C0 CO 

00 coo 






OiOo 

J COi-i 



CO ^ CO Ol >0 CO Oi I— I c<» 
CO»-Jw5-i^ T-H Tji CO CO CO 



CO tH lO 1^ 



QO O -^ ■* Cs 

cdo-4 c4co 



COC^I 



IM -^COO 



Oll^ N 00 o 
C0 030i-!-li 



O-H 

coco 



■*C»i-l 



CO OS Oi t~* 05 

CO 00 oi T-3 CO 



00 "3 



■*COI^ 
'5^rHCOlO 



';t^ T^ ■<*< O 00 

coci oc^co 



OCO 

coci 



■vT-i CO CO 



W* CO<NO 
CO ^OC^^ 



■^00 CO 
^r-< coco 



•* 00 CO 
J^i-H CO CO 



ojr^oooo 

CO OCO CO -^ 



TJICOM" 



CO cor*o^ 

co^ c^i CO 1^ 



cDr>- 
co^ 



IC-^ OOUO 
CO"^LO-* 



iO O C0»O N CO i-( 

CO o^ cico CO CO 



01 NOOiOt-h 

coo-H oJco 



Oi-H 

cdco 



OS ■* 
oico 



0O0O(M 



ooo ^ ot^ 

00 O CO CO o 



00 cs 
oit-^ 



"OOO 

T]^ coco 



oo 
ooo 



OOrt 00 
COt-< ■*' 



rHCO OStH OJ OCO 

ooo CO^ Tf cot^ 



-* CO OTC^ IM <N^ 

o 00 CO th ^ cdi> 



OIM in(M(N IMOO 
1-H 03 COr4 -^ OiI>- 



Oi O O lO C^ CSI o 
cq o co^ »o oir-H 



th t~ wioo ooo 

Cid ^tH CD o-i 



OOi-H lO to 05 

0500 -*»-;-<i5 



ot^co 
lO'-H-a' 



oo 

COt-< 



(NO O 

cor-^ oj 



tPO o 

CO t^ CO 



■* O 1-1 

COOC CO 



CO o »o 

CO O CO 



COOO N 



COO 
cooi 



&0 00 00 

cooSt-^ 



lOCOCO 
Tj5 O 00 



lOOt^ 

cooioo 



COOCO 
cooi oi 



(N-H 

■ooo 



<i-l IMC<1(M .-ItH 



CO 1-1 

oo 






ocq 

■a' 00 



(NCO 

CO 00 



COOO 



COOO 



NO"* C005 
CO C^ OJ CO t-^ 



f^CO'^ CON 

CO 05 <^ CO CO 



COCOi-t oooo 
■"1^ 1-i 00 CO »o 



-* 00 CO 00 o^ 
CO (N 1^ co»o 



COi-IO CM'* 

^^co^^ couo 



•*i-llO OTfi 
CO c4 CO COlO 



00 CO 
(NiO 




3 ^ 53 c3 -2 0^ 3 



> 






sw 















a-- 



5M6' 



s 



:i5M 






3 B~2..'2Sft W^ 
3s M o^ 



^ (M CO '^ LQCOt^GCO Or-tCN 



CO '^ no Xi l^ 



00 a> o T-H (M 



10 CO t^ oO 05 



T-C-HtM C^ (N C^ (N (M<M(M cs cs 



IM.OOl) ()!• MAUCMi-APHII., lOOT. 



37 



29.2 

30.9 

32.5 

.2 


6.0 
12.2 
11.0 
22.5 


28.4 

29.8 

30.0 

.3 


6.2 
12.6 
11.0 
21.1 


25.6 

29.6 

32.7 

.3 


5.9 
12.1 
11.0 

18.8 


18.7 

24.5 

31.0 

.1 


5.7 
11.9 

8.5 
15.7 


15.2 

22.6 

26.8 

.2 


6.8 
12.3 

8.5 
16.4 


13.5 

23.0 

29.0 

.3 




13.8 

25.0 

32.5 

.4 


6.2 
10.0 
8.3 

18.8 


13.3 

24.4 

35.0 

.1 


OOiOlOCO 


-HO»(M-H 


C^ ICCO CO 



I>-00 00 w 




0<D00 ' 








^H 00 "^ 






OOOrt 




OINCOO 






•.^ ._, ^ -.^ 








IMf^CCr-l 




tOiOiO w 








(NCO f 




rHrt IN 


-HTT 05C-J 




OOliO'i" 








CO CO *^ 






lomcoio 




00-* -J"*- 








coco^ 




1-1^ M 


05 0200 




0<NO!0 


OCOiO-H 




CO t^-*-H 


coco ■* 






ocot^-»< 




»OCO W3 CO 














oioqoo 




CO -5< t^O 






•*Ot^O 














d 
















:? 
















3 






g 






s g ® 




2h 


H 






ecr.a«- 


rland : 
ina, T 
shville 
rksvil 
Broac 


s 


Knoxvill 
Chattano 
Florence, 
Johnsonv 


mbe 
Cel 
Na 
Cla 

ench 


^ 


" u 


1 




O 'rX^fH 




C 




cs 


« 




:* 


«== 


r^ 



> ?o CO fo ro ro CO 






s^i,as 



ss 



^»0 ■^■^■^iO-^ •^'^ >0 -^-^ -^-fio >0>0 O'^'l* 



■^NOOO cOC^-^fi-lC^ CDC-1 (N •^O OCOIO "50 OO-H 

oot^OoO irar-^t^^-^os oooo o cDco oooocd co^ oioico *J 

1-H CS CS tN CO CO rH C^ rH COCO i-H rH tH C^ (N 1-1 C^ w 






■*000 OOSOeOcO OOO 
t-^COOOCO lOt^OOr^N oi IN 



OOOJO 1-H r.H lO .* CO OlO 
00 t^ 00 -1* lOOOOO^CJ C^ CO 



»OiOCOO COC^f^COOS CO i-H 

t>^»ouoc5 »oaocOi-Hc4 (Nco 



T-i 1-H lo o ioo<Nr*o coco 

t^iO>0 tOo605i-HCO c^co 



r-^"OcDc5 



CDOONCO 
"OOOcSiNCO 



005 

coco 



OOC^CO 

cocJoi 



c-ico 



"1" IN CO C> M CO lli 



COlO 
COi-H 



OOCO lO 

cooes 



CO 00 

CO-* 



t^ Ol 05 IfO t^ 

rH oi COOIN 



CO(N 
CO'O 



CO CO lO Oi o 
-1^ CO vji O CO 



r^ 05 iCi O 

I^ lO CO T-H 



rt -* t^cO CD 
CO 05 i-H CO CO 



CO CO oco cs 
(^ o »0 1-J CO 



t>.O>C0iO 
t^ lO t* ^ 



t^'^rHOO 

COCJCO-*-^ 



1-H CO OSO W3 
OOO kJ INCO 

INrH T^ 



t>^ lO r-^ CO 



OO *■* ^ 1-1 CO 

r-^ ci i^ CO •* 



■*CO -^OOIN 
^ O CO C^ -"1* 



10-* . O 

IN-CO CO 



1-1 C-J (N IN CO 

O lO ^ 05IO 



r-l IN^ CM •-< 



com o 
co^ >o 



IM-H O-H IN 

CO C^ IN "O »0 



1 Cq rH 1-1 



W CO 00 00 



1-1 rt rt c<i c-q 



o -* eq 

oio5 lo 



00> OOU5 
i*!* 1.^ ^ -^ CO 
NCM rf t-l 



COOiOrt 
t^ CD t-^ IP 



1* 1^ 00 IN -K 

CO OS ^ ^ CO 



CD-* O 

CO cii CO 



OCO CO C<I t-.. 

IN<N "1< WCO 
NIN .^ 



00 >0 COIN 
I^COOO-^ 



lO — * CDOOO 

cDOe^'fl'co 



COCO CO 

coco CO 



COO coio o 
c<ics ^ 



loo 
coc4 



coc« 
coe4 



o>ira 
coei 



OOiOCO ■«<.-( IN020 
CO C5 CM CO "O L-j CO CO 



GO CD to 

>0 O*. CO 



■0 05 CMt^oo oir^ i-iooo 
CM o ^ o ci CO »o CO CO -^ 



■* O tl CO lO 
nf CO ^ -^ -^ 



O CD IN OOO 

»0 CD CO 'I' "O 



05(N rHCOCO 

ic r-^ CO «o uo 



IC 00 ** »0 lO 

t-^ a^ oc* i>^ iO 



CM 00 to O t^ 

00 o »^ oi uo 



1-1 1-H cocoo 
CO oi JO ^ CO 



00 t^ O CO lO 
to C3 GO lO CO 



COOO i-liOO 

cDc*i OS cdoi 



■.^^(^ 



. -£ " 









_0 c3 

>t§lu 



o ho, 



i^ 2 



(i| gpMOiJ 



M o 
=3 



>^. 






^ , 



3 ® n § 



s 



0>H 






IS 



03 . g 

. : ^ 

^ ^ -S t^i" M 

fa ^i- O -^ o 

^ S >> = 7;fa 

C c3 g y '"i, M 

C3 r^ C3 .iq ^ Q 



O >a * 






r-ic^oO't* lo^ot^coos o^(>) co-^ lO'or^ 



38 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 






^ 

":-, 



^ 



0^ 



o 








^ 
















-0 fO fO 






e 


e t3 e 


e e 


ease 


^e^o^e^ 


^ 


&H 
























r^ 


1 


-f rt 


■oiocq 


05cq 


r^oocft o 


coo t^ r^ 




i-H »— 




rt <M 




1— ( I— 1 1— 1 1— ( 




P 








>o 


3 




(NC^ 


0«0(N 


coo 


CMt^C<lCO 


CMCOOiO 


















OQ 








CM CO CO 








o 


OTtiOJ 


O>00 


t~i-l05C<l 


CMOl>C0 




,_, 


cq 


OCOIM 


T-(0: 


t>(Z>a> 






















o 


oioai 


a>aa 


oco ^ CM 


CM CM 01 .-1 




O 


i?i 




















'^'-' 1 








o 


0>0 05 


Oco 


CQ>OC».-l 


co^ooo 




S 


cq 




t^o 
















^^ 1 








^ 


C^ t^*^ 


t-HlO 


lo o>^o 


lO 10 CM CO 




2S 


(N 


O COOi 


























<o 


Tt*I> :0 


-»<U5 


O3C0 '* 1-1 


10 t^ CO 1-1 






C<) 


OOO 


cot- 




CM 10 ■* CM 












1-i T-4 








00 


CO os»o 


C^OO 


>oooa>cM 


r~030o ' 




o 


cq 


OCOi-l 


t^O: 


CO.HCD 


CM lO 10 CO 




















00 


I^O^ 


CM CD 


r-(COO.-H 


t^,-HiO05 




la 


(N 


Ot~(N 


OOi-H 


l> CMOO 


CM CO") CO 








rt CO 








^ 




























1 
















1—1 


1>C<I00 


l^iM 


030rHT-H 


OICOOOO 






OI>IN 


OCM 


I>-fi^ 


C^COCO-9< 








rt CO 




rHC<. , 








'O 


00-*i-H 


00 02 


00r-C*O 


Oi-iioo: 




n 


CO 


OI>CO 


1-1 (N 


OOCOiH 


COOCOUO 






i-H CO 












»-( 


Ost^lM 


QOO 


Ot^t^O 


Tt< t^>0,-i 










S?5 






















■o 


,-l-HOS 


00 03 


CO ••i^ coo 


I>-*ICM CM 




^^ 






»0 CM 


tH^CSI 










■-H CO 












CO 


•^COlO 


00 M< 


.H0510r-1 


OCOO-* 










COCJ 


TjiOOlO 










r-( CO 




T-ICMCO 








o 


1O00O5 


COC 


OJCOCMtH 


10 CO OS t^ 










t^c^ 


00 1-1 CO 


TJIOOIO 




f-H 
















o 


0050 


CM CO 


CM!-- 00 I-H 


oio 000 










t~l-H 


lOi-llO 


LOi-H W 








T-Hi-ICO 


1-1IM 


CM CO CO 
















!>> 








•d 




















M 








;2; 




















CM 








■ cT 




■ 


a 

g 

s 
B 

§ 






3 
1 

a 


Q 

c 
c 

> 
SO 

o3 


c 

C 
e 
"-£ 

c 


> 

B 

O OJ 




een, Upper Lock No. 
ibash: 

Terre Haute, Irtd . 

Mount r,armp,l. Ill 


1^ 

1^ 


a 


St) 

to 

IS 

cex3 


c 
a 
E- 

11 








a 


M a^ 


5 S^ 








lOCOt^ 


00 cr 


O—ICMCO 


-rt^iOtOt^ \ 








ev 


!> 


CN 


CM 




cr 


*■' 


coco 






^■^ 1 



I'M.OOP OK 1SS4. 39 

The discharge clurmg the flood of March- April, 1907, at sdx dif- 
ferent points along the river and the volume of water above the 
ihmger line and above other stages are shown in Tables 16 and 17 
(pp. 78, SO). The maximum daily discharge for the flood of 1907 
ranged from 424,000 second-feet at Wheeling to 633,000 second-feet 
at Louisville; the maximum run-oft" per square mile ranged from 17.1 
at Wheeling to 5.46 at Evansville. The total volume of water for the 
entire flood varied from 337,000 million cubic feet at Wheeling to 
1,030,000 million cubic feet at Evansville. The number of davs the 
flood was above the danger line varied from 4 days at Wheelmg to 
16 at Evansville. 

FLOOD OF 1884. 

CAUSES. 

The flood of February, 1884, reached stages at all points on Ohio 
River which have been exceeded at Pittsburgh only by the flood of 
1907, at Cairo by the flood of 1912, and at all points on the Ohio from 
Marietta to MaysviUe, and at Mount Vernon, Paducah, and Cairo by 
the flood of 1913. 

The causes of this flood were precipitation above the normal over 
the southern part of the Ohio basin during the month of January^ 
the large amount of snow on the ground at the headwaters and over 
the basin as a whole the latter part of the same month, the imper- 
vious condition of the ground due to the unusually low temperature^ 
that occurred durmg January m all sections of the basin, the warm 
weather that occurred the first part of February, and the heavy, 
warm rains that fell from February 3 to 14 throughout the drainage 
basin. 

The warm rains melted the snow, and as the ground was frozen 
practically aU the water reached the watercourses quickly and thus 
produced the high stages that occurred throughout the length of the 
river. 

PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE. 

The daily and total precipitation from February 3 to 14, 1884, the 
period of rainfall that caused the peak rise, are shown in Table 9 
(p. 41), but not the entire amount of precipitation that caused the 
whole flood. The total precipitation given is not comparable with 
the total discharge during the flood given in Tables 15, 16, and 17 
(pp. 75, 78, 80). The stations used are the same as those used for 
Tables 3 and 6 where records are available. No records were sub- 
stituted for those at the stations in Table 3 for which no records for 
1884 were available. 

The scarcity of rainfall records for the period February 3 to 14 
has made the preparation of a rainfall map extremely difficult, but 
the distribution of the 12 days' rain is shown on Plato XII, which 



40 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APRIL, 1913. 

represents the drainage area of Ohio River, including the principal 
streams, towns, rainfall and gaging stations, and lines of equal rain- 
fall for the period. 

The temperature during January was very low. In Ohio the 
mean for the month was about 10° below normal; in Kentucky the 
mean broke all previous low records ; and in Tennessee the mean was 
the lowest in 20 years. The lowest temperature recorded in Ten- 
nessee was 16° below zero; in Ohio the minimum recorded was 
34° below zero; and in Indiana —28° was recorded. The rainfall 
map for January, 1884, in the publications of the United States 
Weather Bureau shows that there was a total precipitation of 2 to 4 
inches over practically the entire Ohio basin, 4 to 6 inches on the 
basin of the Allegheny and south of Ohio River, 6 to 8 inches over 
the basins of Cumberland and Tennessee rivers, and more than 8 
inches on a wide belt extending northeastward across central Tennes- 
see. Much of this precipitation was in the form of snow, which? 
owing to the unusually low temperatures during January, was on the 
ground at the end of the month, especially at the higher altitudes at 
the sources of the streams. Near the end of January a warm wave 
extended over that part of the basin adjacent to the river and was 
followed by colder weather. The ground was frozen throughout the 
basin, thus making the soil impervious ; there was a large amount of 
snow on the ground; the warm weather and rains the latter part of 
January had melted some of the snow and the water was running 
into the streams. The cold weather the first of February checked 
the run-ofi^ considerably in the upper part of the basin, but the warm 
weather and rain began a few days after the 1st and continued to the 
14th. During the period February 3 to 14, as shown by Plate XII, 
the rainfall was more than 4 inches over practically the entire basm, 
while over large parts of the basin in Kentucky and Tennessee 
there were over 6 inches, with records of 8, 8.1, and 8.2 inches at 
three widely separated stations in those States. 

GENERAL FEATURES. 

An examination of Table 9 (p. 41) shows that there were two 
storms in the period from February 3 to 14, one February 3 to 9 
and the other February 10 to 14. Plate XIII shows the effects of 
these two storms and the thaw and rain the latter part of January. 
The effect of the January rain and thaw is shown by the crests that 
occurred at Pittsburgh on February 1, and the effect apparently 
shows as far down as Louisville, where the volume of water from the 
southern tributaries (the Big Sandy, Licldng, and Kentucky), and the 
Muskingum and Scioto on the north, had raised the Ohio to flood 
stage. The rains from the 3d to the 9th caused the river at Pitts- 
burgh to rise rapidly, from 11 feet on the 4th to 33 feet on the 6th; 



U S GEOLOGICAL 




GEORGE OTIS SMITH 
















^'■' 






t' 






( l.HriS 






2.5/ 






W-* 




40 

1 






36° 

j 


T / 

/ / 

[r 

L_ 

\ 1 
•s 

/ 






" 




MAP SHOWING RAINKALL IN OHIO RIVER BASIN, PEB. 3-14. 18S4 



U. S. GEOI 



PlTTSBU/f 

fOJ 



I'SOm/lesAe, 
fi/ttsiH/ri 



07Bm/7e 



C/NC/NAfA7 
f466m/'/es. 






{7a7/r>/,'bs. 



PAD OCA. 



CA/fi, 



FU 

Shows 1 



. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 PLATE XII 



pnTSBuneH 

10/ 

K/HtCLING 

O0mii«sbe/oiv 

fiiUlburg/,/ 

UAKIETTA 
CINCINNATI 

nearr„/uj 

LOUISHILte 

f604ni,'/fsj 

cvANsyat.c 

(Wm/^j 

PAOUCAH 

CAIKO 
IXlml^j 


JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 
27 26 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 £6 27 28' 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 






















/ 


s, 


























































































1 




\ 


\ 










































































J 




\ 


^ 




1 




4 






•v. 


— 




"^ 


^ 




\ 


\ 























































- 




_ 


^ 


1 














1 


\ 


s 
































■~" 




-- 




- 














































1 




"^ 






\ 








^ 


■> 






























































\ 




\ 




J 




/■ 


) 






\ 


Ni. 


-N 


-/ 






\ 


V 




















































N; 




/ 


1 








^/ 


7 












\ 


■ve 


=- 


--, 


N 










■ 




\ 




^ 


































y 


/ 








/ 


^^ 


~ 


y 
























^ 




— 


^ 


"^^ 


N 








































/ 




















__ 






^ 










X 


\ 


s 












^ 


V 




^ 






























') 


















^ 


? 




























N 


\ 


V 


















































r-/ 


/ 










/ 


-- 


__ 




- 




> 












" 


\ 


\ 


X 


^ 


\ 


St 










































wl 


/ 








7 


7 


































\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 






































1 




/ 


/- 


7 












































\ 


^ 


\ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 




PI 
















- 




^ 


^ 




/ 




























e 








- 


-. 


^ 


^ 








HT 




\ 

3 


\ 
































1 








^ 


/ 












































■^ 


^ 




\ 
























— 


\ 


- 


1 




/ 


/ 


/ 

































- 


- 














^ 












\ 


\ 


■s 
































/ 


f 














'^ 






-- 








































■v. 


■^ 


■v 


^ 




■V 


^ 


- 


^ 






















/ 


/ 


/ 


> 


^ 






- 




— 




































^ 






■^ 








-. 






y 






-. 




,^ 








/ 


/ 


y 


/ 


/ 
































































■-- 














^ 




- 








^ 


'? 



















































































FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS (GAGE HEIGHTS) FOR 7 STATIONS ON OHIO RIVER DURING THE FLOOD OF 1884. 
•lows the distance of each station below Pittsburgh and the danger line (indicated by horizontal arrows) at each station. For gage 

heights see Table 10, page 42. 



ri.oon OK is><4. 



41 



tlio rise was also very rapid at Wliooliug, the stage increasing from 
20 feet on the 4th to 53 feet on the 7th. The hydrographs on Plate 
XIII indicate that the rise caused by the rain of February 3-9 was 
general all along the river and that the run-oti" from the rain of the 
period from the 10th to the 14th reached the main river before the 
u})-i'iver w^ator had entirely passed. 

Table 9. — Precipitation, in inches, at selected stations in or near Ohio River basin, 

February S-14, 1884- 



No. 


Station. 


3 


4 


5 





7 


s 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


Total. 


1 


Ohio. 
Toledo 




0.04 


0. 90 


0.28 




0.07 


0.08 





0.10 


0.37 


0.19 




2.03 










3 






.58 
.31 
.20 
1. 35 
. 55 


55 
1.22 
1.04 
1.56 
.56 


1.40 
.63 
.65 
1.65 
1.42 


0.07 
.01 
.05 
.23 


".'64' 

.06 

T. 

.12 


.07 
.51 
.30 
.06 
.17 


0.02 
.02 


.26 
.45 
.83 
.59 
.16 


.06 
.15 
.32 
.06 
.33 


.55 
.57 
.42 
1.18 
.90 


0.02 
.02 
.04 

".'62" 


3.58 


i 


Cleveland 


O.Cl 


3.92 
3.91 








6.82 


8 


Dayton.. 




4.25 


9 






























10 


Bellefontaine o . 
Indiana. 


























11 




























12 


Terre Haute K 


2.13 


.83 






.59 




.17 


.12 








3.84 


13 


















14 




1.00 


' .25 




.18 






1.25 




2.68 


15 














16 


Indianapolis . . . ' 


.43 


.81 


.63 


.04 


.09 


..3i 


.04 


.08 


. 77 


.17 




3.37 


17 


Elliston a > 




18 




.. . i 




1 












19 


Shoals a 






1 


1 












20 


Illinois. 
La Salle a 




























''1 




.95 








.01 
T. 
.03 
.18 


.10 

.01 
.16 

. 25 


".'is" 

.12 

.03 


.22 

".'io' 

.51 


1.08 
.10 
.40 
.11 


.10 
1.13 

1.14 
.13 






2.46 


22 
?3 


Chicago 


.60 
.57 
.07 


.32 
.37 

1.17 


.03 
.03 

1.24 


.15 
.40 
.43 


T. 


2.49 
3.32 


''-1 




T. 


4.12 


25 


Kentucky. 




26 




























27 




























9S 


Frankfort 




1.23 
.89 


.40 
2.38 


L91 
1.73 


.70 

.63 


"t." 


.10 

.14 


".'ci' 


.97 
..60 


.03 
.27 


1.25 

.77 


"t." 


6.59 


29 






8.02 


30 








?1 


Tennessee. 

Chattanooga . . . 

Knoxville 

Nashville 


.01 
.13 






.04 
.01 
1.73 

.37 

.21 


3.19 
1.53 
.68 

. 02 

.09 


1.21 
.78 
.74 

.24 

.11 


.52 
1.97 
.44 

.03 

.23 


.12 
.33 
.25 

.08 

.02 


.01 
.02 
.01 

.25 

.15 


".'53" 
1.15 

.36 


1.23 
.61 
1.08 

.16 

.19 


.05 
.38 
.01 

.06 


6.38 


32 

33 


. 22 
!04 

1..32 

.09 


.40 
.12 


.5.98 
5.51 


34 

3.) 


Missouri. 
St. Louis 

Michigan. 
Detroit 


T. 
.05 


4.02 
1.68 


36 


Pennsylvania. 




37 


Pittsburgh 




.45 
.01 


.76 
1.05 


80 
.50 


.34 
.01 


.01 
.02 


.04 
.40 


.13 


.53 


.06 
.25 


.14 

.59 


.18 

.28 


3.44 


3S 


Erie 


■1\ 


3.48 


39 


West Virginia. 



































a No record. 



42 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 



The part each tributary played m producing the flood of 1884 on 
the Ohio can not be definitely stated, as there are few records of gage 
readings on the main tributaries in that year, but Table 9 and Plates 
.XII and XIII indicate general floods throughout the basin. As a 
rule, the tributaries were not so high as during the flood of the pre- 
vious year, and only the Big Sandy and the Muskingum reached 
record stages. It seems probable that more water came from the 
southern tributaries than from the northern. 

It has been concluded without going into a detailed study of the 
subject, which is not warranted in this paper, that the floods on 
practically all the tributaries in 1884 occurred about the same time 
and this caused the channel of the Ohio to be 'quickly filled to the 
danger line at all points. At the same time the lower reaches of all 
the tributaries were filled so that the water from the upper Ohio had 
no opportunity of flowing into the storage basins sometimes provided 
by the lower stretches of the large tributaries. This also must have 
had a decided effect in producing the extraordinary stages of this 
flood. A brief discussion of these natural reservoirs is presented on 
pages 45-46. 

The Pittsburgh Flood Commission states in its report upon flood 
control that if the 43 reservoirs investigated in its studies had been in 
operation at the time of the flood of 1884 the crest stage at Wheeling 
would have been reduced by 13.1 feet, to a stage of 40 feet, or only 4 
feet above the danger line. 

STAGE AND DISCHARGE. 

The daily gage heights from January 25 to March 12, 1884, at 
stations on Ohio River used in Table 4, so far as available are pre- 
sented in Table 10. Gage heights at Marietta replace the record at 
Parkersburg. For comparing the stages on tributaries for which 
few records are available. Table 9 and Plate XII (p. 40) will be found 
useful. 

Table 10. — Gage height, in feet, at stations on Ohio River during flood of 1884. 



Date. 


Pitts- 
burgh, 
Pa. 


Wheel- 
ing, 
W. Va. 


Marietta, 
Ohio. 


Cincin- 
nati, 
Ohio. 


Louis- 
ville, 
Ky. 
(lower). 


Evans- 
ville, 
Ind. 


Padncah, 
Ky. 


Cairo, 111. 




3.7 
3.4 
3.3 
3.3 
3.1 
3.3 
6.0 

21.0 

19.5 
12.8 
11.3 
13.0 

29.0 
31.5 
27.0 

22.2 
18.8 


6.8 
6.6 
7.0 
11.0 
10.8 
8.8 
11.9 

16.2 
29.2 
26.0 
20.0 
21.5 

35.0 
46.0 
47.0 
41.2 
38.0 


6.5 
6.5 
6.5 
12.2 
16.1 
18.6 
21.0 

19.2 
24.1 
29.0 
26.5 
28.3 

36.2 
44.1 
47.2 
52. 8 
51.2 


18.3 
17.5 
16.6 
16.1 
15.8 
18.8 
30.6 

38.4 
45.6 
49.3 
50.1 
52.5 

58.8 
61.6 
62.5 
63.7 
64.8 


19.3 
18.0 
17.8 
17.5 
15.0 
15.8 
23.5 

34.0 
, 40.6 
45.5 
48. ?. 
51.6 

57.6 
62.8 
64.1 
65.6 
65.7 


18.6 
17.7 
16.8 
15.7 
14.7 
15.7 
IS.O 

24.0 
29.0 
32.8 
36.3 
38.3 

41.2 

42.5 
4-1.2 
44.8 
45.2 


26.7 
24.7 
24.3 
23.3 
22.9 
22.0 
21.8 

22.8 
24.7 
28.1 
31.0 
33.2 

36.3 
39.0 
41.2 
43.1 
44.7 


27.4 


26 


26.8 


27 


26.6 


28 


26.3 


29 


2.5.7 


30 


25.0 


31 


25.6 


Feb. 1 


25.6 


9 


26.0 


3 


28.7 


4 


31.8 


5. 


34.2 


(5 


37.0 


7 

S 

9 

10 


40.3 
42. 3 
43.8 
44.9 



OOMl'AIUSON OF THK FIOOHS 1\ THK OHIO VALLEV. 



4?> 



T.\Bi;E 10. — Gage hcuiht, in feet, at stations on Ohio River (luring flood of 1884- 

Continued. 



Fei). 11... 

12... 

13... 

14... 

Ki... 

1(1... 

17... 
IS... 
19... 
20... 

21... 
22 

23!!! 

24... 

25... 

26... 
27... 
28... 
29... 

Mar. 1... 
2 

i!!! 

4... 
5... 

6... 
7... 
8... 
9... 
10... 

11... 
12... 

Crest: 
Stage 
Date. 



Pitts- 
burgh, 
Pa. 


Wheel- 
ing, 
W. Va. 


Marietta, 
Ohio. 


Cincin- 
nati, 
Ohio. 


Louis- 
ville, 
Ky. 
(lower). 


Evans- 
ville, 
Ind. 


Paducah, 
Ky. 


17.0 


33.0 


48.0 


66.3 


66.0 


45.6 


46.3 


17.4 


29.5 


41.2 


68.2 


67.1 


46.1 


47.4 


18.4 


29.0 


35.0 


69.7 


68.8 


46.3 


48.6 


17.2 


26. 5 


34.2 


71.0 


70.5 


46.8 


49. 5 


20.6 


30.0 


33.5 


70.2 


71.7 


47.2 


50.4 


18.9 


32. 5 


32.0 


68.4 


72.0 


47.5 


51.2 


14.8 


28.0 


29.0 


66.1 


71.3 


47.8 


52.0 


12.8 


22.5 


24.0 


63.5 


70.1 


48.0 


52.6 


13.2 


20.8 


24.0 


60.5 


68.5 


48.0 




12.8 


20.8 


23.0 


58.9 


67.1 


47.7 


53.6 


12.4 


20.0 


22.8 


55.9 


65.2 


47.5 


54.0 


12.0 


19.3 


21.7 


52.1 


62.5 


46.5 


54.2 


11.5 


17.8 


19.2 


48.8 


59.2 


46.2 


54.2 


9.0 


15.1 


18.5 


45.4 


55.7 


46.0 


54.2 


8.2 


13.5 


16.0 


41.2 


51.0 


45.3 


53.8 


7.5 


12.2 


14.0 


37.0 


46.4 


43.6 


53.5 


7.3 


11.2 


13.0 


33.0 


42.6 


42.5 


52.8 


6.8 


11.2 


12.0 


29.3 


36.2 


41.0 


52.0 


6.3 


10.5 


11.2 


26.6 


31.5 


38.7 


50.9 


5.2 


9.8 


10.5 


24.5 


27.1 


37.6 


49.9 


4.8 


8.4 


9.8 


22.9 


23.9 


36.5 


48.1 


4.3 


7.8 


8.6 


21.2 


22.6 


32.4 


46.2 


- 4.3 


7.3 


8.0 


20.6 


20.5 


31.7 


44.2 


4.1 


7.3 


7.6 


19.5 


19.0 


29.0 


41.8 


3.8 


7.2 


7.4 


18.2 


18.0 


26.0 


39.3 


3.2 


7.2 


7.2 


18.0 


18.0 


24.0 


36.8 


3.9 


7.0 


7.3 


24.0 


19.0 


22.0 


.35.0 


10.5 


7.8 


8.6 


31.0 


24.0 


21.4 


33.6 


15.8 


16.0 


10.0 


36.5 


31.5 


22.2 


33.0 


12.9 


21.0 


18.0 


40.0 


36.5 


23.8 


" 33.0 


13.8 


21.2 


23.2 


46.6 


42.5 


30.2 


34.4 


33.3 


53.1 


52.8 


71.1 


72.0 


48.8 


54.2 


Feb. 6 


Feb. 7 


Feb. 9 


Feb. 14 


Feb. 16 


Feb. 19 


Feb. 23 



Cairo, 111. 



4.5.8 
40.6 
47.4 
48.2 
49.0 

49.7 
50.3 
50.8 
51.2 
51.5 

51.7 
51.8 
51.8 
,51.8 
51.7 

51.5 
51.2 
50.7 
50.2 

49.5 
48.6 
47.7 
46.6 
45.2 

43.5 
41.6 
39.8 
38.1 
36.8 

36.1 
36.4 

51.8 
Feb. 22-24 



The discharge during the flood at four different points on the Ohio 
is shown in Tables 16 and 17. The maximum daily discharge of the 
flood of 1884 varied from 401,000 second-feet at Wheehng to 792,000 
second-feet at Louisville; the maximum run-off per square mile varied 
from 16.2 second-feet at Wheehng to 6.29 second-feet at Evansville. 
The total discharge for the entire flood period varied from 474,000 
milhon cubic feet at Wheehng to 1,690,000 miUion cubic feet at 
Evansville. The stage was above the danger line 4 days at Wheehng, 
19 days at Cincinnati and Louisville, and 28 days at EvansviUe. The 
discharge in excess of that at danger line and at other stages is dis- 
cussed on pages 74, 83-84. 

COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 

CAUSES. 

The direct cause of the floods of March-April, 1913, March- April, 
1907, and February, 1884, was heavy rainfall. 

The rain that caused the flood of 1913 was exceptionally heavy 
through the northern part of the basin, amounting to 10 inches or 
more on the divide in northern Ohio. The winter had been mild and 



44 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

open, the ground was without snow, was not frozen, and was abeady 
saturated with water by the heavy rains of January and the rains of 
the first part of March, so that practically the entire rainfall rapidly 
reached the streams. When the rains that caused the flood began 
the river channels were fairly well filled, none of the tributaries being 
low; the main Ohio above Parkersburg was at ordinary stages and 
below Parkersburg at comparatively high stages. 

The flood of March- April, 1907, was also caused by heavy rains in 
the northern part of the basin and over the headwaters above Pitts- 
burgh. A flood in January had reached higher stages below Ports- 
mouth than the March flood, so that the soil was saturated and in a 
condition favorable to rapid run-off. The month of February was 
warm and open. There was a heavy snowfall over the headwaters 
above Pittsburgh, which was melting rapidly, because of the high 
temperature at the time of the greatest rainfall. The main Ohio 
above Huntington was at ordinary stages when the rains began, while 
below Huntington the stage was above ordinary, with stages increas- 
ing toward Cairo. The tributaries were, as a rule, at ordinary or low 
stages, with the exception of Cumberland and Tennessee rivers, which 
were above ordinary stages. 

The cause of the flood of 1884 was a warm rain throughout the 
main basin, but conditions previous to this flood were different from 
those prior to either of the other two floods. The month of January 
was very cold, with a heavy snowfall throughout the basin, so that at 
the beginning of the rains which produced the flood there were large 
quantities of snow at the headwaters and the ground was frozen solid 
so that no appreciable amount of the rainfall could be absorbed — -a 
condition as favorable for rapid run-off as that afforded by a saturated 
soil. The Ohio at Pittsburgh was at ordinary stage at the beginning 
of the rain; at Wheeling it was above the ordinary, and thence on 
down the river was at or near flood stages, probably caused by the 
rains and thaw in the later part of January. Below Marietta the high 
stages were probably due to the second period of rain which was 
general throughout the basin. The run-off from this second period 
of rain reached the river before the water from Pittsburgh had entirely 
passed, and produced the maximum stages which occurred all along 
the river during this flood. 

The flood of 1913 stands out from its predecessors especially because 
of the exceptional magnitude and intensity of the storms which were 
its direct cause and because the greatest damage was done along 
tributaries which in the past had not been particularly effective in the 
creation of the floods on Ohio River. The area of maximum rainfall 
represents that part of the basin in which the topography and other 
conditions are generally believed to be least favorable to flood control 
by impounding reservoirs alone. Whether or not this is true in pro- 
portion to the size of the rivers in this area in Illinois, Indiana, and 
Ohio can be determined only from detailed surveys. 



COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 45 

PLACE OF ORIGIN. 

The flood of 1913 originated in the northern part of the basin, ospe- 
cially in the comparatively small area at the headwaters of Muskin- 
gum, Scioto, Miami, and Wabash rivers. The southern tributaries 
contributed a fair proportion of the water in the main stream, but the 
four tributaries above mentioned are responsible for the great damage 
and loss of life and for the high stages reached on the Ohio at and 
below Marietta. 

The flood of March- April, 1907, had its origin principally in the area 
above Pittsburgh and in the northern tributaries. 

The flood of 1884 was general throughout the basin. (See hydro- 
graphs, PI. XIII.) The flood crest occurred at Pittsburgh on Feb- 
ruary 6, and as it proceeded downstream it apparently rode on top of 
the high stages resulting from tlie general rain that produced the 
flood at Pittsburgh and was aided and increased by the second period 
of general rain of February 10-14. 

PROGRESS. 

The dift'erence in the rates of progression of the flood waves during 
the three floods is marked. The crest of the flood of 1913 reached 
Pittsburgh March 28 at 6 a. m. and Cincinnati April 1 at 12 noon, 4 
days and 6 hours later. The crest from Pittsburgh reached Cairo 
April 8 at about 7 p. m., about 11 ^ days later than at Pittsburgh. 
The crest of the flood of March- April, 1907, reached Pittsburgh March 

15 at 5 a. m., Cincinnati on the 18th at 11 p. m., 3 days and 18 hours 

later, and Cairo on the 24th at 4 p. m., 9 days and 11 hours later than 

at Pittsburgh. The flood of 1884 reached its crest at Pittsburgh on 

February 6; at Cincinnati February 14, 8 days later; at Cairo February 

22-24, 17 days later. 

RECORD STAGES. 

Record stages during the flood of 1913 occurred at Marietta, Park- 
ersburg, Huntington, Catlettsburg, Portsmouth, Maysville, Mount 
Vernon, Paducah, and Cairo. The flood of 1907 produced record 
stages at Pittsburgh and at Beaver Dam. The flood of 1884 still 
holds the record for stages at Wheeling, Cincinnati, Louisville, and 
Evansville. (See Table 11, p. 48.) 

The duration of each flood and the number of days each was above 
the danger line and other stages at different points are shown in Table 

16 (p. 78). The duration of each flood is more or less an arbitrary 
value. Efl'ort was made to begin and end each flood period in a well- 
defined trough at low or medium stages. 

EFFECTS OF TRIBUTARIES. 

Tributaries either increase the stage of the main river, keep it at a 
high stage, or reduce the stage, the effect depending on the amount 
of water flowing in them. A maximum flood stage on a tributary 



46 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

increases the stage on the main stream. Under some conditions the 
stage on the main stream is simply maintained at the same relative 
stage by the flow from a tributary. When a large tributary is at a 
low or relatively low stage, the stage on the main river near the 
mouth of the tributary is reduced very materially for two reasons — 
first, a large amount of water passes from the main stream into 
the lower reaches of the tributary, where it is temporarily stored, 
and, second, the tributary is not yielding sufficient water to fill to 
the increased stage the main channel below. The large capacity of 
the channels on the lower reaches of tributaries becomes apparent on 
considering the distances that the flood waters of 1884 would have 
extended, if the tributaries had been empty— approximately 33 
miles up the Muskingum and 73 miles up the Kanawha. At 
Louisa, 26 miles up the Big Sandy, there would have been 
a depth of 18 feet on top of the upper pool; the flood would 
have reached about 25 miles up the Licking, 65 miles up the Ken- 
tucky, 108 miles up the Green, and at ^ClarksviUe, on the Cumber- 
land, 126 miles above its mouth, the stage would have been 12 feet 
on the gage. At Johnsonville, on the Tennessee, 95 miles from its 
mouth, the gage would have read 24 feet. The lower reaches of many 
of the large tributaries at flood stages are of considerable width, 
perhaps 2 or 3 miles. 

FUTURE FLOODS. 

It has been pointed out that the flood of 1913 was caused by 
storms that progressed from the lower to the upper end of the drain- 
age basin, permitting the water from the lower tributaries to run 
off and get out of the way in the main stream before the water from 
the upper end of the basin entered the Ohio and reached the part 
affected by the tributaries nearer the mouth. This, fortunately, is 
the general trend of storms in the Ohio Valley, but it must be borne 
in mind that a severe storm whose path would be the reverse — that 
is, from the source toward the mouth — though not probable, is 
entirely possible. In such a storm the direction of progress would 
be the same as the direction of flow and the magnitude of the result- 
ing disaster can not be predicted. It is also possible that a larger 
area of maximum precipitation than that of the storms of March 
23-27, 1913, may occur over the Ohio basin and its location could 
be much less fortunate than that of these storms. For example, 
the results if the area of 10-inch precipitation of the storms of March, 
1913, had been central over Portsmouth, instead of being on the 
northern rim of the basin, can be estimated only by extending the 
damage and loss in the congested and comparatively small area of 
the present flood to the lowlands of the entire basin, and probably 
to the lower Mississippi. The condition is not pleasant to contem- 
plate, but it is possible. 



COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 47 

A H()0(i on the Ohio ui ooiij unction with flootls on the upper Mis- 
sissippi and the Missouri, which of course is also possible, as excessive 
nuns in this locality are not peculiar to any season, would probably 
protluce a calamity? on the lower Mississippi unprecedented in the 
history of this or any other country. With this possibility in view 
all who have studied the situation ao^ree that there should be no further 
delay iji establishing a complete system of rivei' control that will 
insure systematic cooperation between the National Government, 
the States, and local interests. 

STAGE AND DISCHABGE. 

Data for comparing the stage and discharge of the floods in the 
Ohio River valley are presented in Tables 11 to 18, inclusive. 

Tables 11 and 12 give the crest stages as determined from the 
available data for the floods of 1884, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 1913. The daily gage heights for each of these floods are 
given in Tables 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 (pp. 25, 26, 34, 36, 42). 

Maxuuum stages prior to March, 1913, and the differences in gage 
lieights of the March-April, 1913, crests from previous maxhna are 
also given in Tables 11 and 12. 

The fact that the column of crest stages prior to March, 1913, in 
Table 12, shows no general flood indicates that the highest stages 
on the tributaries are usually due to local storms covering rela- 
tively small areas. The storms of March, 1913, were exceptional in 
this respect, maximum stages during the flood of 1913 occurring at 
stations on tributaries over a comparatively large area. 

The column of ''Records available" gives the year in which 
published records, or records readily obtainable, began. Records 
prior to these years may possibly exist but the}' were not discovered 
by brief search. 

The column of "Distance of station above mouth" gives the dis- 
tance in miles of any given station above the mouth of the stream 
on which it is located. For example, the distance of Shoals is 
measured from the junction of the East and West branches of White 
River and the Wabash, since the West Branch is considered the 
headwater stream of White River. 

In general, the drainage areas were taken directly from the pub- 
lications of the United States Weather Bureau, reducing the values 
to three significant figures. Elevation of zero of gage above mean 
sea level, unless otherwise noted, and stage of danger line were 
also taken from the publications of the Weather Bureau. These 
stages of danger line were used in computations at all points except 
Marietta, Ohio. At Marietta (danger line 25 feet) a gage height 
of 35 feet was used in the computations because it is more nearly 
{•<nn})arablc with the danger Ime stages ai other points on the upper 
Ohio, especially Parkersburg. 



48 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 



(i; 



'^^ 
'« 



"<. 



^ 
s 









^ c3 (^ 2? 

fl 05 p Ol 



, 0) fe 



Q 03 



S-Mg 



0.^5 b.-S 



^PmdS 



W 1 



tHio OlOOOOffiiOCOt^MTf •^(N ^00 



l^ t^ Tjl rj< Tjl -^ TJH Ttl '^ Tjl Tf* -^JH -"^^ -^ Tt^ (N 

OO 00 00 00 00 00 C» 00 GO 00 00 00 00 00 rH 
Oi Oi 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 OO 00 00 CO 00 00 o 



»CiO t^0505 I 05IM C^ -^ -^ 005 



(M (>5^ 



03 03 



fH fi( ftH fH ftH fe |xh fi< ftl [X( fLH fi( [i(- 



i-<0005O00(MC0t^^O00t^ 
COC4cCOTlHOCDiOWC^o6^ 



as asaa".".aa, 



iaaa 



ft 03 Ph c3 Q Q 03 ft^ 

oooooooooS 

^ oj ^" ■= == (N (N 



ftftft 



aa 



CM (M (N [M C^ c^ CO CO CO CO 



a 03 






OO 



i-Hcoo:>oo^i>.ai'<5^ooo-rPcr5 

T-HCOOOCNOt-^t^OOOOON 



CO"^ lOi^iOCDCDOOcDCOt^TpiO »OiO 



lO ITS ITS O CD 00 CO QO CC 00 00 O CO 



I ;-< (h tj tM ^ I 



lOi-H 



i-H>.000"*"*OOC^T-HOOOO 

oo6i-Htjio6ooci<Ni-Hc^»o 



t^O^Ol I 05 IM C^ rti --Ji CO Oi (M 



ClH pIH F^ &H fo t^ pq fe flH Pm ftH fx, fEnCLi 



T-H QO Oi O 00 (N CO t- rH O 00 t>- (MOO 

c-^oiccOTjHcooiOi-HcqcOrH 'rjl,-! 

iO>C>OCCCOcDCOcOI>l>-rJHiO »o»o 



oooooooooooo 
coiooaiooooo"^»o» " 



OO 
coio 



CN M CO C^ CO CO lO lO lO lO lO O CO CO -^ -^ 



C<)0 c500OTj*OC00t't>00OC^'-H 

t-^ lO O 00 --^ oi r-I t-^ O CO O^ CO ci lO 

0510 rH CO CO O O 00 t-^ -^ ?! r* OJ i-H 

coo O »0 lO lO tP "^ Tp Tf TP C« 1 CO CO 



COOi 
coo 

ooi>. 

(N(N 



OO oooooooooooo OO 
OO OOOOOOOOOOOO OQ 



OOO 00 t^ !>• lO CO CO CO u^ 00 O O I>- OO 
<N CO COiOiO OCO Ol>- CsO O OO 



ocO'^t^-^oor^tQt^oO'^t^co 

O^'t-^OOCDO'-iiOOCDOOOCN 
i-Hi-HCQCOCOCO'<*^-^Ol^OO 



H UO 00 CO 00 CO O t- t* C^ 00 1— ' CO OO CO 00 
5 00 CO l:^ 00 t^ t^ OO 00 O lO t^ 1^- 00 l>-iO 
500 00 CO 00 00 00 OO 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 



!^ > 






PhM 






^? • 03 



PS 

.2 o a 

3 03 D 
o [> o 



o te 03 

l-HI-l 






im' 



03 o; 



03 £' 



..Q 






0^ (It oi^ 

h ID (U O 
O 60 f>" 

Pj 03 o:) wi 
1>>>..2 03 &0 

J O O CO tH " 
CO ^j '-^ "^ 05 ro 

■-o m SO -3 

in m J^ S 1=1 m 

o oOt3 o 
h-l l-l CO O P W 



COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



49 






'-^ 



o 



•ninuiixtiui 
snotAOjd raojj is9J0 'eiei 



•e^Ba 



D-93«;g 



■aniTx 



■9%va 



•eSc^g 



•QIBQ 



•gS^^s 



•aj^a 



•(?88j) 8tni jeSTTBCE 



•(:>39j) \9AB\ Bas 
treatn aAoqB oSb^ 
JO ojaz JO uon'BAai3 



•(sainn 
a J B n b s) no!}B;s 
aAoqT? BajB eSBOj'BJQ 



•(saifui) 
qSjnqsi'^itj jnojaq 
mnom JO aouBjsjQ 



00 00 ^ 



I I I 



»0 lO ^ l>l 



saS 



CO -> „-H 



^ CO CO -H* 



esa 6 



— - CM 



2c5 12 



ooco 

<N ... 



t^od 



B3-S8 

nO CO 



o o c 

: :S 



O f' o 

:a : 



S : 



cs-a ca-o 

s ; s ; 



rt r-lC.) CO 'H 



•«< tOt^CM 00 

2 S52S ?j 






C^OOO 

i-^dod 



iJ o o 

s ; 



CMCNCO CO 



•ocoo 

1— I Oi t^ 



•* oo 

CDOOCR 
Tjl CO 1-* 
OOt^l^ 



^ : 



tO<N 



Tt^ CO O CM 



>— < CO »0 Oi 



ooo 

CO »0 TT 



CM I^ CO CO lO 



OO CM O 

OS 00 00 lO 






•(santn) qjnoui aAoqB 
uojiBjs JO ajut'jsici 



— (jBa^);noqB aouis 
ajqBijBAB spjooa'jj 



03 . 

oO 

w 



o (S 



OS's! 2 






OOOlr-lOCMC^ 
—I t^-H(M to i-( rHOCJ- ^ rH 



CO -^ 05 »o 



*?" to CO t-- 



I^ WOO I 



cJPhPh 



5 ^ 






. > ci is 



s .a 



>> 



S"^ C-l 






SOS'S 












3833°— wsp 334—13- 



om CM 

■* to ^ 

CM ■* CO 

CO t^ t~ 



•^ Oi CO O 00 



^ r? 



fl — 


a) cj 


So-^ 


ja- 


.a 5s 


•^ P* 




■so 


^>. 


» g <» 


n-9g 


M =«a 




^wg 


■gimg, 




mt3<i 



E ^ *: 

C3 «H-^ 

Hi 

* >- — 

03 Sm 

i5St3 



o s V 



5=« 



50 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAECH-APRIL, 1913. 



a:; 



■£ 



^ 



'^ 















O SJ "* 








CO T- 


<CM 


CO 


coiot^ 




•innniixBTii 




•^ 


10"rH,- 


m 


CM c»t^ d «.-H -#d 


T— I 03 CO 


snoiA9Jd mofl %saio 'giei 
'lIJdv-qoiBpt JO 9on9J9jjic[ 




+ 


+ + + 1 


(M ,- 

1 1 


" 


' 7+ 1 7 


+ + 1 




CO 




^ 






OO GO<M i-l 


00 00 GO 00 i-< l-H Ci 


00000 








o 




05 01.- 





l> t^ t> 


I^ to tH 00 


Ol 




Oi 




o> 




OO 00 Oi Ol 


00 0000 00 00 05 Oi 00 


00000 














rt rH l-H l-H 
















































■^ 1 O O 


10 CO 


-!)< ooto 01 






•9;Ba 


CS 






CS j CO (N 


1-i rt 


rt MCS 


CO 1 


CM CM CM 




03 

s 










C3 S K 


a 
< 


02 CGOQ zn OQA l-s 


W tH ^ 




or 




00 t 


00 






00 OlCv 


en 


CO CO 00 




o-9gBlg 


u- 


!N 


tO>0 TT 


>r: 


1-* CO i^" 


1- 


d oc 


oar-J 


-H 00 1^ 




£ 




"" 


'"' 


com- 


c<i 


CO <N »0 CO Tfi iH i-i CO 


CM CM CO 


« 


•auifx 




a 

O 


^ :s as 

>. ; ft IS K 


a ^1 a a a a'a^g 
ft ^>, cs ftft ft^f^r 




s'a 
1^ 










o 


"i :g 


oc 


c 


ti 


c 


----c 


£:^o 












oc 


". ^ oc 


-^ fl 


'C . CO 




'Eh 

ft 






c4 


w :<N 


IOC 


06 Sp- 


oi Tfi c 


c^Q 2i 


■ T-i r-i 






s 


t^ lir 


00 


t^ 00 




. f^ 


'. I oc 


»o 1^ 


m 


< 






O) ;(N 


cs 


c\ 


(N 




,c^ 


c^ 


CM C^IM 


0^ 


i 


•9}Ba 




jj 


i; o t. 


C c 


;- 


jj t. 


do s- 


[-^ ;H tH 


-+J 






t:3 


03-3 o; 


03 -C 


5 


03 t: 


■^ 


T3 c: 


•axf 




o3 






S 


^ :^ 


s 


'^ 


^ 




:^ 


: ; ^ 


III 


+j 


S 














































O 








<>< 


0OU5C 


^ u- 


m IC >0 00 Tf 


oco oc 


000 i-H 




•83b:) g 




o 


.-ico« 


dcf 


10 TT CO r>I ^ o- 


lO^ CM 


CM t^ "^ 










lO ^ "M 


(N^ 




,-< M (N m T- 


,-ICM rh 


CM CO CO 


>::• 






in 


-* '• 


TJ< 




>o 


ur 








to 


'^ 


T)< 




o 










"^ 




'^ 


















„- 


•9:jBci 




































t.1 


i-'.2 


!-■ C 




^ 




_o 








U* 


»H 




ft 






03 


CST) 


OS'C 




03 




■a , 






5 


C3 


03 




1 






1^ 


S : 


S 




§ 


1 








:^ 


S 


s 






IM 


^ o 


toe 




10 


,r 









to 





,_, 




03 


•aSB^g 




O 


ceo 


00 0( 




d 




„; 






OS 


oi 


00 




S 








■v?^ 


'^ '^ 








CM 






IN 




J 






















Ol 


c 


^ 








































^ 


















■9^'Ba 


















,Q 


X! ,0 






,c 






























Ol 


<D 0) 
















00 




















li, 


p:. 


f^ 






fS 


























to 





















•9SBig 


















d 


<y 


S 






^ 












[^ 


00 


mm 





t> 


"* 


10 








t^ -^ »o 




■(ra9j) ami jaSu^ci 






(MIM 


(M 








CO 








""^" 


•(;89j) T9A9t 'B9S 


c 


o 


mo 




•Cv 


t- 


(M -^ 


' (^ ■* 


>o t^ oc 


CO«OCM 




aB9iu 9AoqE 93b3 


5 


g 


>0(N 




0- 


CV 


^S 


,- 


s 


ii 1 


CO 10 cm' 

.-) 




JO 0J9Z JO uoi;BA9jg 


oc 


s 


too 




« 


t^ 


CO OC 


to 10 


''-.■^ w 


CO mio 


•(S9iira 


IX 


o 


ooc 


OC 


c 


c 


oc 


00 c 


000 




ir 


(M 


t^oa 


oc 




<M C 




CM ^ OC 


t^ t^ 




9 J'B Tibs)) notjBjs 


o- 




TPOl Tt 


ccir 


1> 


CM or 


CO t^cr 


'^CM l> 


10 coo 


C5 


9A0qB B9J13 aSim^id 




" 


to'rC- 


1—1 ,— 


(^ 


to'tc 


00" CC~^ 


rH,-r 00 


rn'TlTcM'^ 


•(S9tira) 






,-1 '. 


■<^ 








10 








t- 


CO 


00 


m 


qSmqajiTtj Ai6|9q 






h~ ■ 


00 








S 








5 


CO 


Td 


o 

i 


q-jTiOTii jo 9onB:jsi(j 




































■^ ■ 
































^ 


o 




^ a 










"3 






















1 






II 










1 


03 

















:' 




i^ 


"S 9 


fe 


i^ 




•S 






^ 


03 

a 










^0 


d 






-^ 'C 


> 


■g 3 


o •■« 





•a 


C8 




c 






gx3 


■a 


d 




?~~' 




1^ 


2 '^ 


3 


g 


M 




2 




§ 


3 




3 






W 


H 


o :;s 





W 











^ 


M 










•(S9iira) q;nora 9AoqB 


«c 




ootc 


OOCT 


? 


,-lCS 
tOi- 




s? 


to^ to 

CM CM 


0000 

I^UOCO 




uoi;i3;s JO 9onB:jstci 






















— (aB9A) ^jnoq^B 9ouis 


~^ 


§ 


1^ r^c 

06085 


S*~ 




r^ c 


1^ 


Kg 


00 00 to 
00 a> 


OJOOO 




giq^iiBA^ spioo9a 


cr 


a> 




cca 


oc 


000c 


<j>a> 00 


000 00 




5 


D 
o 


03 
O 

i-J 

2g« 


mgum: 

mesville, Ohio 

everly, Ohio 

;an: Pomerene, 


03 

6«£ 


p 
P 
d 



a 

03 


C3 
> 


c3 
> 

C 
C 


03 
> 

> 


"a 


• §"' 

03S 
^11 


Va. 

y: Belva, W.Va.. 
01 e n d e n i n, 
Va. 
landv: Louisa, 


(Upper J^ock 
3). 
>: 

Dlumbus, Ohio 

tiillicothe, Ohio. .. 
ag: Falmouth, Ky. 




(3 


o 

03 


|N«2 




CD 


Sfi 


03 


Sg 




i>>d^ao3 








^ 


ei 




S 


1^ 


^^ 




^ 






W 










W 


w 


w 




hq 



COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THK OUIO VALLEY. 



51 



+ + + I 






0«D 



fid -H 00 
+ + + + 



oo>»o 

7 I I 



SgN I 



15 a 5 



C<5<N O 



CO COO 



ea aaa 



ooo 






(N COCN (M 



c3 ^ c3 d 






NOM IN 

^ .-H ^ C3 
CO M Dp •'i^ 



<0 0505 (N 

■* -ion ^ 



o o j^ O j_; 

: : S :S 



C3 03 



(NCO OCD<N 

lO O O O CO 
rH !M CN (M CO 



t-Hr-f T-1CO 



03 ^ C3 ^ 



rH»0 TilOOCD 



1 O O O iC 



CD GO O 
CO (M lO 
CO CO Ol 



Oi CO (M lO 






(M ro o 05 



CO o o 00 



03 » 



CO O 

w ifi ■>)< I 



CC OD OUi^ 
03 03 03 00 C^» 



a aaa a^a 



o .0X3 

CO .-H I- • 



00 o 1— I en 



^ ^ ^ 03 



coco lO CO 
.-H CO coco 






CO cJ rH c^; 



CO 0-* ■* 



i-< COr-ICO 



00 00QCO5 

CO t-^ O lO 

05 r-H O W 
t^ CO -^CO 



11 



t^CO 


t^iOCO 

T-HCDCO 


1-* lOOO 




s 


l§3 




00 Ol 


,-(00 05 

mocoo 


oj ooo 


i 

I— 1 


1 


III 


CO-* rt lO 
OO t^ 1-* t^ 

00 00 00 00 



•ot: . 



.— . oi a; 
■3 P .T^ S 






oTa^ c3 

oi rl c3 5 



W O ^ ^ W d 




° .a 

a > M 

^ t7o 

03 O .. 
<D t, g 

.3-9 • 



03 a a 

W g5 C3 

« g a 



52 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APRIL, 1913. 



The dates covered by the gage heights in Table 13 include the day 
previous and the day folio wmg the low point in the trough at the 
beginning and end of each rise. The periods in the table are intended 
to cover the entire rise and, in general, the stage at the end is practi- 
cally the same as the stage at the beginning of the period selected. 
Effort was made to select well-defined troughs. The dates covered 
by the daUy discharge begin and end on the day of lowest gage height 
in the trough at the beginning and end of the flood. 

Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 191S. 





February. 


March. 


Day. 


January. 


February. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1859. 
1 






46.9 
44.2 
40.2 
36.8 
32.7 

29.8 
27.1 
26.8 
26.0 

25.4 

25.0 
25.0 
25.9 


367,000 
335, 000 
290, 000 
255, 000 
214,000 

187, 000 
162, 000 
160, 000 
153, 000 
147,000 

144,000 
144,000 


1862. 
1 






31.8 




2 . . 






2 ^ 








3 






3 










4:::.:.:.... 






4 










5 






5 


11.9 

11.7 
12.1 
13.8 
15.0 
15.7 

17.2 
17.9 
20.8 
22.0 
24.2 

28.3 
33.2 
36.4 

41.7 
48.1 

52.3 
55.2 
56.1 
57.3 
56.5 

53.9 
48.8 
41.6 
34.2 
29.5 
27.0 








6 






6 


44,700 
47, 000 
57, 200 
65, 000 
69, 700 

80,400 
85, 600 
108, 000 
118,000 
137,000 

173,000 
219,000 
251,000 
307,000 
381,000 

432,000 
470,000 
482,000 
497,000 
487,000 

453,000 
389, 000 
306, 000 
229, 000 
184, 000 
162, 000 






7 






7 






8.. 


20.8 
19.2 
19.4 

19.8 
20.8 
22.1 
22.1 

20.8 

24.8 
28.2 
36.2 
43.9 
51.2 

54.0 
55.2 
55.3 
54.2 
52.4 

51.1 
49.1 

48.1 




8 






9 


95, 500 
97,000 

100,000 
108,000 
119,000 
119,000 
108,000 

142,000 
173, 000 
249, 000 
331, 000 
419,000 

454,000 
470, 000 
471, 000 
457,000 
434,000 

417,000 
393,000 
381,000 


9 






10 


10 






11 


11 






12 


12 






13 


13 






14 . 




14 






15 






15 






16 






16 






17 






17 






18 






18 






19 . 






19 






20 






20 






21 






21 






22 - - - 






22 






23 






23 






24 






24 






25 






26 






26 






26 






27 






27 






28 






28 






29 






29 






30 










30 






31 










31 























COMPARISON OF TllK FLOODS 1\ rilK oil id VAI.l.FV. 



53 



Table 13. Daily gage height, infect, and (litharge, in second-fcct, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 19 IS — Contd. 





February. 


March. 


May. 


Bay. 


Gage 
heignt. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1865. 
1 






41.5 
41.6 
40.9 
44.8 
49.5 

53.4 
55.8 
56.2 
54.8 
52.2 

47.7 
42.4 
38.2 
35.8 
34.5 

33.1 
33.9 


304,000 
306,000 
298, 000 
342, 000 
398,000 

446,000 
478,000 
483,000 
465, 000 
431,000 

376,000 
314, 000 

269, ono 

245,000 
232, 000 

218,000 






2 


1 






3 




16.2 
16.0 
16.4 

21.5 
25.4 
27. 3 
31.2 
34.8 

41.5 
46.5 
49.1 
51.2 
50.8 

49.1 
45.5 
40.8 
36.0 
35.3 

30.5 
25.8 
23.8 
23.6 
23.0 

29.1 




4 


1 


71 800 


5 


1 


74 600 


6 




114,000 


7 






147 000 


8 






164,000 


9 






200,000 
235,000 

304,000 
362,000 


10 






11 






12 






13 . 






393 000 


14 






419,000 
414,000 

393,000 
350,000 
297,000 


15 






16 . 






17 






18 








19 










247 000 












240,000 
194,000 


21 








22 


25.3 
24.4 
24.7 
25.3 

36.0 
40.2 
40.7 






151,000 




138, 000 
141,000 
146,000 

247,000 
290,000 
296,000 




133 000 


24 -. 




132,000 


25.. . . 




126,000 


26 


.. . . 


27 






28 


i 






29 








30 












31 




















1 









February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dk- 
charge. 


1867. 
1 






44.8 
42.8 
42.8 

44.8 


342,000 
319,000 
319,000 


44.8 
42.8 
42.8 
44.8 
48.2 

50.5 
51.8 
52.2 
52.8 
53.6 

53.6 
52.7 
54.5 
55.4 
55.7 

55.1 
53.3 
49.8 
44.0 
37.4 

31.5 

27.8 
26.8 
29.2 




2 






319 000 


3 






319,000 
342,000 
382,000 

410,000 
426,000 


4. .. . 






5 








6 










7 










8 










431,000 
439,000 
449,000 

449,000 
437,000 
461,000 
472,000 
476,000 

468,000 


9 










10 










11 










12 


29.1 
28.2 
29.7 
40.0 

45.0 
49.3 
50.6 
51.0 
51.8 

53.3 
54.1 
53.3 
52.2 
49.8 

47.5 
46.8 
46.3 








13 


173,000 
186, 000 
288,000 

344,000 
395, 000 
411,000 
416,000 
426, 000 

445, 000 
456,000 
445,000 
431,000 
401,000 

374,000 
365,000 
359,000 






14 . . 






15 






16 






17 






445 000 


18 






401,000 


19 






333,000 
261,000 

203,000 
169,000 
160,000 


20 






21 






22 






23 






24 






25 








26 










27 










28 










29 










30 














31 





























54 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APEIL, 1913, 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1013 — Contd. 





January. 


February. 


Day. 


July. 


August. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1870. 
1 . . 






29.2 
26.5 
24.1 
22.1 
20.4 

19.0 
17.8 
16.8 
15.9 
15.2 

14.5 
14.2 

14.4 


182,000 
157, 000 
136, 000 
119, 000 
105, 000 

93, 900 
84, 900 
77, 500 
71, 100 
66,300 

61, 600 
59, 700 
61, 000 


1875. 
1 






37.0 
43.0 
47.9 
51.0 
53.6 

55.3 
55.1 
. 52.9 
48.8 
42.2 

35.4 
28.9 
23.6 
20.3 
18.3 

16.7 
15.9 
15.2 
14.2 


257, 000 


2 






2 






321, 000 


3 






3 






379, 000 


4 






4 . . . : 






416, 000 


5 






5 






449, 000 


6 






6 






471,000 


7 






7 




468, 000 


8 






8 




440, 000 


9 




• 


9 


13.3 
12.4 

14.6 
14.9 
16.7 
23.8 
34.2 

35.8 
36.6 
34.9 
31.0 
26.5 

24.8 
25.2 
32.8 
36.2 
37.8 

37.5 
36.2 
35.4 
36.4 
35.9 
34.8 




389, 000 


10 






10 


48,700 

62,300 
64,300 
76, 800 
133,000 
229, 000 

245,000 
253, 000 
236,000 
198, 000 


312, 000 


11 


24.3 
22.4 
25.8 
26.3 




11 


241 000 


12 


121, 000 
151,000 
i.n.=s.nnn 


12 


179, 000 


13 . . 


13 


132 000 


14 


14 


104, 000 


15 


29. 9 1 88'- 000 






15 


88, 600 


16 


39.2 
42.2 
54.4 
55.2 
54.8 

54.4 
53.8 
51.5 
48.2 
46.5 

' 43.8 
39.9 
37.4 
35.7 
33.8 
31.7 


280,000 
312, 000 
459, 000 
470, 000 
465, 000 

459,000 
452, 000 
422, 000 
382, 000 
362, 000 

330,000 
287, 000 
261,000 
244, 000 
225. 000 
205; 000 






16 


76, 800 


17 


•■«••■ 




17 /.... 

18 .... 


71, 100 


18.. 


66, 300 


19 






19 


59, 700 
59, 700 


20 






20 


157,000 14.2 


21 






21 


142, 000 
145, 000 
215, 000 
249, 000 
265,000 

262, 000 
249,000 
241, 000 
251, 000 
246,000 
235, 000 


14.2 
14.0 
13.8 
13.7 
13.5 

12.7 
12.1 


59, 700 


22 






22 


58, 400 


23 . 






23 


57, 200 


24 






24 


56, 500 


25 






25 


55, 300 


26 






26 


50, 500 


27 






27 




28 






28 




29 






29 






30 






30 






31 . . . . 






31 














i 



(HUMI'.MilSON Ol'^ 'rilK I'l.OODS IN TIIK OHIO V.-M.IJOV. 



or) 



'P.VBi.R I;?. — Daily gage height, in feel, and discharge, in second-feel, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1913 — Contd. 





January. 


February. 


1 )ay. 


January. 


February. 


Day. 


Oaere 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Di,s- 
eharge. 


1S76. 
1 




45.3 
45.8 
43. 8 
40.9 
37.5 

.33.4 
29.8 
27.8 
27.2 
32.2 


.348,000 
353, 000 
330, 000 
298, 000 
262, 000 

221,000 
187, 000 
169, 000 
163,000 


1S77. . 
1 






18.2 
17.3 

IS. 7 


87,900 






2 






81,200 








3 














4 










■ 




5 
















6 
















7 


10.7 
10.2 
10.8 
11.2 

13.3 
16.0 
20.2 

32.4 
30.8 

38. 5 
46.5 
52.1 
52.9 
53.2 

53.2 
50.8 

47.7 
44.8 
41.1 

37.1 
32.8 
28.0 
24.5 
21.3 
19.8 








.^ 






8 


36,600 
39,800 
41,900 

54, 100 
71,800 
103,000 
212,000 
197,000 

272,000 
362, 000 
430,000 
440,000 
444,000 

444,000 
414,000 
376, 000 
342,000 
300,000 

258,000 
215, 000 
171, 000 
139, 000 
112,000 
100, 000 






') 






9 






10 






10 






11 


17.2 
16.0 
16.7 
18.2 
20.1 

21.1 
20.3 
19.9 
28.1 
27.0 

29.7 
30.4 
35.2 
41.0 
43.2 

44.8 
44.8 
48.2 
51.8 
49.8 
46.8 






11 






12 


71,800 
76, SOO 
S7,900 
102, 000 

110,000 
104,000 
101,000 
172, 000 
162, 000 

186, 000 
193,000 
239, 000 
299, 000 
323,000 

342,000 
342, 000 
382,000 
426, 000 
401,000 
365,000 






12 






13 






13 






14 






14 






15 






15 :.... 






16 




16 






17 







17 

18 

19 

20 






IS 






19 










20 
















21 






22 . 






22 






23 






23 






24 






24 






25 







25 






26 






26 






27 






27 






28 . . . . 






28 






29 






29 












30 






31 






31 





















February. 


Day. 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1880. 
1 






1881. 
1 .. . . 






23.0 
21.2 
20.7 
21.2 


126,000 


') 







2 






111,000 


3 






3 






107,000 


4 






4 



























6 


18.0 
16.2 
18.1 
26.3 
33.2 

33.2 
35.3 
41.8 
46.6 
49.4 

50.6 
50.1 
47.5 
44.3 
41.5 

41.0 
41.6 
40.2 
37.2 
35.2 

30.8 
27.3 
24.8 








7 






7 


73, 200 

87, 100 

155, 000 

219,000 

219,000 
240, 000 
308, 000 
363,000 
397, 000 

411,000 
405,000 
374,000 
336, 000 
304, 000 

299, 000 
306, 000 
290,000 
259, 000 
239, 000 

197,000 
164,000 
142,000 






8 






8 . .. . 






9 .. . 


14.7 
14.1 

14.2 
15.7 
26.0 
40.0 
48.6 

52.3 
53.1 
52.0 
49.8 
45.7 

40.3 
35.5 
30.8 
27.8 
25.8 

24.8 
24.5 
24.4 
25.0 




9 






10 


59,000 

59, 700 
69, 700 
153, 000 

288,000 
387, 000 

432,000 
443, 000 
429,000 
401,000 
352,000 

291,000 
242,000 
197,000 
169,000 
151,000 

142,000 
139, 000 
138, 000 


10 






11 


11 






12 


12 . . 






13 


13 






14 


14 






15.. 


15 .. 






16 


16 






17 


17 






18 


18 






19 


19 






20 


20 






21 


21 






22 


22 






23 


23 






24 


24 






25 


25 






26 . . . 


26 






27 


27 






28 . . 


28 






21 















56 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APKIL, 1913. 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, infect, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1913— Contd. 





February. 


Day. 


February. 


Day. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1882. 
1 






1882. 
16 


44.7 
47.8 
50.3 
52.6 
54.4 

58.1 
57.8 
55.6 
53.9 
52.9 

51.7 

48.8 
44.2 


341,000 
377, 000 
408, 000 
436, 000 
459,000 

508,000 
504,000 
475, 000 
453,000 
440,000 

425,000 
389,000 
335, 000 


1882. 
1 


39.1 
33.7 
28.7 
25.3 
24.2 

26.0 


279 000 


2 






17 


2 


224 000 


3... 






IS . .. 


3 


177 000 


4 






19 


4 


146,000 
137 000 


5 






20 


5 


6 


29.2 
27.0 
27.5 
28.5 
33.2 

37.0 
39.3 
41.3 
46.2 
45.5 




21 


6 




7 


162, 000 
166, 000 
175,000 
219,000 

257,000 
281,000 
302, 000 
358, 000 
350,000 


22 


7 




8 


23 


8 






9 


24 

25 


9.... 






10 


10 






11 


26 


11 






12 


27 


12 ... . 






13 


28 


13 






14 




14 






15 


15 

















January.' 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1883. 
1 






29.1 
28.2 
26.8 
29.7 
31.2 

29.6 
42.8 
52.3 
57.1 
59.0 

60.7 
63.4 
64.9 
65.4 
66.1 

64.3 
62.3 
60.4 
59.0 
57.6 

55.9 
53.5 
49.5 
45.0 
41.9 

39.5 
34.3 
31.4 


181,000 
173,000 
160, 000 
186,000 
200, 000 

185,000 
319, 000 
432, 000 
495,000 
520, 000 

543, 000 
579,000 
600, 000 
606, 000 
616, 000 

591,000 
564, 000 
539, 000 
520, 000 
501, 000 

479,000 
448, 000 
398, 000 
344, 000 
309,000 

283,000 
230,000 
202, 000 


28.4 
26.2 
24.4 
23.2 
21.4 

20.0 
19.0 
18.9 
20.0 


174, 000 


2 






154, 000 
138, 000 


3 






4 






128, 000 
113,000 


5 






6 






102, 000 
93, 900 


7 






8 






93, 200 


9 








10 








11 










12 










13 .. . 










14 










15 










16 










17 










18 










19 










20 _ 










21 










22 











23 










24 










25 










26 . 










27 


25.7 
24.9 
25.5 
27.1 
28.8 








28 


143, 000 
148,000 
162, 000 
178,000 






29 . . 






30 










31.. . . 





















COMPARISON OK TIIK KI.OODS IN 1' 1 1 K OHIO V.\l.l.l•;^ 



57 



T.xBLK l;i.- Daihj gage height, infect, and discharge, in sccotid-fect, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1SS9 to 1913 — Contd. 



Day. 


January. 


February. 


March. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1884. 
1 






38.4 
45. 6 
49.3 
50.1 
52.5 

58.8 
61.6 
62.5 
63.7 
64.8 

66.3 
68.2 
69.7 
71.0 
70.2 

68.4 
66.1 
63.5 
60.5 
58.9 

55.9 
52.1 
48.8 
45.4 
41.2 

37.0 
33.0 
29.3 
26.6 


271,000 
351.000 
395,000 
405,000 
435, 000 

517,000 
555, 000 
567,000 
5,S:3.000 
598, 000 

618,000 
644, 000 
664,000 
682, 000 
671,000 

647,000 
616,000 
581,000 
540,000 
519,000 

479,000 
430, 000 
389,000 
349. 000 
301,000 

257,000 
217,000 
183,000 
158,000 


24.5 
22.9 
21.2 
20.6 
19.5 

18.2 
18.0 
24.0 


139,000 
125,000 
111,000 


2 






3 . 






4 






106, 000 


5 






97,700 


6 . . .. 






87,900 


7 






86, 400 


8 








9 . .. 








10 










11 










12 










13 . . 










14 










15 










16 . 










17 










18 










19 










20 










21 










22 










23 










24 










25 - 










26 










27 










28 -. ...... 


16.1 
15.8 
18.8 
30.6 








29 


70,400 
92, 400 
195,000 












31 











Day. 


March. 


April. 


May. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1886. 
1 . 






45.1 
49.5 
52.4 
53.5 
53.7 

54.2 
54.3 
55.2 
55.7 
55.5 

54.6 
53.2 
52.7 
49.9 

45.8 

41.7 
37.3 
32.9 
28.9 
25.9 

23.2 
21.2 
19.6 
17.9 
16.4 

15.6 
14.7 
14.0 
13.5 
13.0 


345,000 
398,000 
434, 000 
448, 000 
450,000 

457,000 
458,000 
470,000 
476, 000 
474,000 

462,000 
444,000 
437, 000 
403, 000 
353,000 

307, 000 
260, 000 
216,000 
179,000 
152,000 

128,000 
111,000 
98,500 
85,600 
74,600 

69,000 
63,000 
58,400 
55,300 
52,300 


13.3 




2 








3 










4 










5 










6 










7 










8 










9 










10 










11 










12 










13 


12.4 
12.3 
12.4 

12.7 
13.0 
13.4 
13.8 
14.2 

14.8^ 

16.4 

21.9 

27.2 

29.7 

30.5 
30.5 
29.5 
30.8 
36.5 
40.0 








14 


48, 100 
48,700 

50,500 
52,300 
54, 700 
57, 200 
59,700 

63,600 
74,600 
117,000 
163,000 
186,000 

194,000 
194,000 
184,000 
197,000 
252,000 
288,000 






15 






16 






17 






18 






19 






20 






21 . 






22 






23 






24 






25 






26 






27 






28 






29 . 






30 






31 

















58 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APRIL, 1913. 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1913 — Contd. 



Day. 


January. 


February. 


March. 


Gage 

height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1S87. 
1 






41.7 
39.5 
47.2 
54.1 
56.0 

56.2 
55.3 
53.1 
49.8 
46.0 

44.2 
44.6 
45.3 
45.6 
46.6 

48.1 
48.5 
49.2 
50.0 

48.7 

47.5 
46.0 
43.8 
(141.7 
42.5 

46.0 
52.9 
54.2 


307,000 
283,000 
370, 000 
456,000 
480.000 

483,000 
471,000 
443,000 
401,000 
356,000 

335,000 
340, 000 
348, 000 
351,000 
363,000 

381,000 
386, 000 
394.000 
404,000 
388,000 

374,000 
356,000 
.330,000 
307,000 
315,000 

3.56,000 
440,000 
457,000 


54.6 
54.3 
52.9 
49.8 
45.2 

40.2 
39.5 
35.2 
33.8 
37.1 


462, 000 


2 






458, 000 


3 






440, 000 


4 






401,000 


5 






346,000 
290, 000 


6 






7 






2&3,000 


8 






239, 000 


9 :::..::..: .::::::::::: 


225, 000 


10 






11 






12 








13 


1 






14 


1 






IS 


12.2 

11.4 
12.2 
12.7 
12.8 
13.1 

13.0 
13.4 
15.1 
21.7 
23.7 

25.5 
31.7 
36.0 
39.7 
42.8 
42.8 








16 


43,000 
47, 600 
50, 500 
51, 100 
52,900 

52,300 
54,700 
65,600 
115, 000 
132,000 

148,000 
205, 000 
247, 000 
285,000 
319,000 
319,000 






17 . 






18 






19 






20 






21 






22 






23 






24 






25 ... 






26 






27 






28 






29. 






30 










31 























February. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gaee 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1890. 
1 






56.8 
56.7 
55. 3 

52.2 
47.8 

42.6 
36.5 
31.3 
27.0 
24.0 

a 23. 3 
30.5 
34.6 
41.6 
43.2 

45.1 

47.9 
48.8 
48.0 
46.5 

45.5 
47.0 
52.0 
56.3 

58.7 

59.1 
68.0 
57.3 
55.0 
51.2 
46.6 


491,000 
490,000 
471,000 
431.000 
377,000 

317,000 
252,000 
201,000 
162,000 
135,000 

129,000 
194,000 
233,000 
306, 000 
323,000 

345, 000 
379, 000 
389,000 
380, 000 
362, 000 

350,000 
368, 000 
429, 000 
484, 000 
516,000 

521,000 
507, 000 
497,000 
467,000 
419,000 
363,000 


42.0 
39.9 
39.6 
38.4 
37.8 

37.6 
37.8 
37.7 
37.0 
36.6 

35.3 
34.1 
34.4 
35.7 
35.9 

34.7 
32.0 
29.2 
28.4 
28.3 

27.2 
25.2 
23.7 
21.3 
19.7 

18.9 
25.0 


310,000 


2 






287, 000 


3 






284,000 


4 






271 000 


5 






265,000 


6 






263,000 


7 






265,000 


8 . . 






264,000 


9 






257,000 


10 






253,000 
240, 000 


11 






12 






228, 000 


13 






231,000 


14 






244,000 


15 


32.8 

30.9 
30.9 
33.3 
35.4 
40.8 

43.0 
43.2 
43.0 
41.7 
42.0 

49.4 
53.2 
55.7 




246. 000 


16 


197, 000 
197,000 
220,000 
241,000 
297, 000 

321,000 
323, 000 
321,000 
307,000 
310, 000 

397,000 
444, 000 
476,000 


234, 000 


17 


208, 000 


18 


182, 000 


19... 


174, 000 


20 


173.000 


21 


163,000 


22 


145, 000 


23 


132, 000 


24 


112,000 


25 


99, 300 


26 


93,200 


27 




28 




29 






30 










31 





















a This day common to iirst and second floods. 



COMPARISON OF TIIK FLOODS IN TllF- OHIO V.VLLEY 



59 



Table 13. — Daihi gage height, in feet, niul di^^hurge, in seroiui-feet, of Ohio River at i'in- 
cinnati, Ohio, for (ill floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1S59 to 1913 — Contd. 





January. 


February. 


March. 


• nay. 


dace 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height . 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


DIs- 
(^harge. 


1891. 
1 






33.6 
38.9 
43.2 

4.5.6 
47.5 

47.9 
46.9 
44.6 
41.5 
40.8 

41.3 
43.9 
46.3 
46.3 

45.1 

44.6 
45.5 

41.8 
41.5 
44.4 

49.7 
53.4 
55.2 
56.7 
57.3 

57.2 
55.8 
53.8 


223,000 
277,000 
323,000 
351,000 
374,000 

379,000 
.367.000 
340. 000 
304.000 
297,000 

302,000 
331.000 
359.000 
359. 000 
345, 000 

■340,000 
350,000 
308, 000 
.304,000 
337,000 

400,000 
446, 000 
470. 000 
490, 000 
497, 000 

496,000 
478, 000 
452, 000 


50.3 
46.6 
40.5 
35.4 

32. 7 

33. 6 
33.8 
32.8 
35.4 


408.000 


2 .... 






363,000 


3 






294,000 


4 






241,000 








214,000 


6 






223,000 








225.000 


8 






215,000 


9 








10 








11. 










12 








13 










14 










15 








16 








17 










18 










19 . 










20 










21 




















23 










^l::::::::::::::::::^:::::;:::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:::: 
















26 








27 








28. . . 








29 .- .. 








30 


25.9 
25.0 












31 


144,000 























January. 


February. March. 

1 


Day. 


Gage Dls- 
height. charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1893. 
1 






29.3 
32.0 
33.5 
34.2 
.33.8 

33.7 
36.0 
36.4 
.35.3 
39.9 

45.3 
47.3 
48. 5 
49.5 

52.7 

53.0 
51.7 
51.3 
52.5 
54.6 

54.6 
51.8 
46.8 
40.2 
■33.5 

28.1 
24.2 
22.2 


179,000 
204,000 
218,000 


21.5 
20.7 
20.fi 


110,000 


2 . . 






104,000 


3 






103,000 


4 






225,000 21.8 










221,000 

220,000 
243,000 
247, 000 
236,000 
283,000 

343,000 
367.000 
381,000 
393,000 
432,000 

436, 000 
420, 000 
415,000 
430, 000 
457,000 

457,000 
421,000 
361,000 
286,000 
218,000 

168,000 
133,000 
116,000 






6 
















' 




8 










9 










10 










11 










12 










13 










14.. 










15 










16 










17. 










18 










19 










20. . . 










21 . 










22 










23 










24 . 










25 










26.. 










27 










28 










29 . . .. 


10.3 
23.5 
26.5 








30 


127,000 
154,000 










31.. 



















60 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MARCH-APRIL, 191.3. 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1913 — Contd. 





February. 


March. 


Day. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1897. 
1 






55.6 
49.9 
43.2 
37.8 
35.5 

43.1 
39.2 
32.5 
40.0 


470,000 
398,000 
319, 000 
261,000 
238,000 

318,000 
276, 000 
209, 000 


1898. 
] 






56.5 
54.1 
51.2 
47.6 
42.9 

37.6 
32.3 
27.3 
■25.6 
23.7 

22.0 
20.5 
19.4 
19.3 
20.0 

20.6 
20.4 
20.3 
21.1 
21.3 

20.9 
20.8 
20.1 
19.9 
18.8 

17.0 
16.5 
20.8 


482, 000 


2 






2 






450, 000 


3 






3 






414,000 
370,000 
315,000 

259,000 
207, 000 


4 . 






4 . 












5 






6 






6 






7 






7 






8 






8 






161,000 
145, 000 


9 






9 . . 






10 








10 


15.2 

15.0 
15.2 
17.8 
18.3 
17.0 

18.0 
20.0 
23.5 
27.1 
31.8 

38.5 
41.9 
44.1 
49.2 
51.8 

54.6 
57.9 
59.8 
61.4 
60.2 
58.6 




129. 000 


11 










11 . 


62,300 
63,600 
81, 900 
85,600 
76, 100 

83,400 

98,500 

127,000 

159,000 

202,000 

268,000 
304,000 
329,000 
389,000 
421,000 

457,000 
500,000 
525, 000 
547,000 
531,000 
509, 000 


114,000 
102, 000 


12 . ... 










12 


13 










13 


93, 900 


14 










14 


93, 200 


15 










15 


98, 500 


16 










16 


103,000 
102,000 
101, 000 


17 . . 










17 


18 










18 .'... 


19 


30.6 
29.1 

29.5 
41.0 
50.4 
56.0 
59.4 

61.1 
60.9 
59.2 








19 


107, 000 


20 


177, 000 

181,000 
295,000 
404,000 
475,000 
520,000 

542,000 
540,000 
517. OGO 






20 


109, 000 


21 






21 


106, 000 


22 






22 


105, 000 


23 






23 


99, 300 


24 .. 






24 


97,700 
89, 400 


25 






25 


26 






26 


76, 100 


27 






27 


72,500 


28 






28 




29 






29 




30 










30 






31 










31 























COMPAIUSON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEV. 



61 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for ail floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 191S — Contd. 





Februai-y. 


March. 


April. 


May. 


Day. 


Gage 
heiglit. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1899. 
1 






37.2 
38.9 
39.3 
38.4 
44.0 

50.3 
55.1 
57.2 
56.9 
54.9 

51.4 
46.6 
41.0 
35. 6 
33.2 

28.4 
25.9 
a 24. 2 
24.8 
29.0 

32.3 
36.1 
40.0 
40.5 
39.4 

37.8 
35.6 
35.2 
39.0 
45.2 
50.0 


255,000 
272, 000 
277,000 
267,000 
328, 000 

403,000 
463,000 
491,000 
487,000 
461,000 

416,000 
358,000 
295, 000 
239,000 
215,000 

171,000 
148,000 
133, 000 
138,000 
176, 000 

207,000 
244,000 
284,000 
289,000 
278,000 

261,000 
239, 000 
235, 000 
2V4,000 
3-12,000 
399, 000 


51.6 
51.1 
47.9 
44.0 
39.4 

34.5 
29.7 
26.9 
26.5 
27.9 

29.3 
30.3 
30.6 
29.8 
28.3 

26.4 
24.2 
22.8 
21.5 
20.7 

19.7 
18.5 
17.3 
15.8 
15.0 

14.9 
14.6 
14.5 
14.4 
14.2 


419, 000 
412,000 
374,000 
328,000 
278, 000 

228, 000 
183,000 
157,000 
154,000 
166, 000 

179,000 
188,000 
191,000 
184,000 
170,000 

153,000 
133,000 
121,000 
110,000 
104, 000 

96, 200 
87, 100 
78,200 
67, 600 
62, 300 

61, 600 
59, 700 
59,000 
58, 400 
57,200 


15.4 
15.6 
15.2 
14.5 
13.8 

13.2 
12.9 
12.7 
13.0 
13.9 


65,000 
66, 300 









3 






6;5,()00 


4 






59, 000 


5 






54, 700 









51,100 


7 






49, 300 


8 






48, 100 


9 






49, 900 


10 








11 








12 










13 










14 










15 










16 










17 


12.3 
11.5 
12.6 
14.9 

25.8 
32.1 
34.6 
35.6 
35.9 

36.2 
39.0 
3.8.6 








18 


41,000 
47,600 
61,600 

147,000 
205, 000 
229, 000 
239,000 
242,000 

245,000 
274,000 
269, 000 






19 






OQ 






21 - 












23 












25 






26 












28 






29 






30 






































April. 


Day. 


May. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1901. 
16 


25.8 
23.9 
24.8 
26.3 
31.1 

40.7 
47.9 
53.2 
56.4 
55.4 

59.5 
59.7 
59.2 
57.7 
55.0 




1901. 
1 


51.2 
46.0 
40.0 
33.3 
27.4 

23.0 
20.0 
17.5 
16.7 
16.4 

16.3 
16.7 


414,000 
351,000 


17 


131,000 
138, 000 
152,000 
196,000 

291,000 
374,000 
439, uOO 
480,000 
467, OtX) 

521,000 
52i,000 
51/,0u0 
497, uOO 
462, 000 


2 


18 


3 


284,000 


19 


4 


216 000 


20 


5 


162, 000 
123,000 


21 ... 


6 


22 




98,500 
79,700 
73,900 


23 


8 


24 


9 


25 


10 


71,800 


26 


11 


71,100 


27 


12 




28 


13 




29 


14 






30 


15 






31 

















a Common to first and second floods. 



62 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APEIL, 1913. 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, hi second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 tol91S — Contd. 





February. 


March. 


Day. 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1902. 
1 






39.6 
44.8 
48.6 
50.4 
50.9 

50.7 
50.0 
48.5 
47.2 
48.8 

45.5 
44.7 
43.0 
41.8' 
41.0 

40.0 
39.5 
39.2 
39.1 
38.4 

36.5 
33.3 
30.3 
27.2 
24.4 

21.8 
19.8 
18.2 
16.4 
16.6 


280,000 
337,000 
382,000 
404,000 
410,000 

408, 000 
399, 000 
381, 000 
365,000 
385, 000 

345,000 
336, 000 
317,000 
303,000 
295,000 

284,000 
279, 000 
276, 000 
275, 000 
267,000 

248,000 
216,000 
188,000 
160, 000 
135,000 

113,000 
97, 000 
84,900 
71,800 


1903. 
1 






38.0 
44.4 
49.0 
51.6 
53.1 

52.9 
51.0 
- 50.4 
50.0 
47.6 

49.2 
49.5 
49.8 
50.2 
50.1 

48.6 
46.3 
43.3 
39.1 
35.7 

30.9 
27.9 
26.2 
26.4 


263 000 


2 






2 j 




333 000 


3 






3 1 




387, 000 


4 






4 




419, 000 


5 






5 






437 000 


6 






6 






435, 000 


7 






7 






411,000 


8 






8 






404, 000 
399, 000 


9 






9 






10 






10 






370, 000 


11 






11 






389, 000 


12 






12 






393,000 


13 






13 






397, 000 
401,000 


14 






14 






15 






15 






400, 000 


16 . ... 






16 






382, 000 
355, 000 


17 






17 .- 






18 






18 







320, 000 


19 - . 






19 






275, 000 


20 . ... 






20 






240, 000 


21 






21 






194,000 
166,000 
151,000 


22 - ... 


8.6 
8.4 
8.6 
11.0 

14.1 
22.5 
33.8 




22 






23 


25, 900 
26, 800 
38,700 

56,500 
119,000 
221,000 


23 






24 


24 








25 


25 








26 


26 


26.5 
25.2 
31.4 


154,000 
142,000 
198,000 






27 


27 






28 . ... 


28 






29 


29 






30 






30 










31 . . 






31 

































March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1906. 
16 






190G. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 


48.8 
.50.2 
49.8 
47.6 
46.5 

42.8 
38.3 
33.7 
30.3 

28.5 

27.9 
27.4 
27.2 
27.3 
28.5 
29.9 


385,000 
401,000 
397,000 
370,000 
357,000 

314,000 
266,000 
220, 000 
188,.000 
172,000 

166,000 
162, 000 
160, 000 
161,000 
172,000 
184, 000 


1906. 
17 


28.9 
29.6 
29.7 
29.0 

28.0 
26.4 
24.0 
21.7 
19.9 

19.0 
17.9 
17.3 
16.1 
16.5 


175, 000 


17 






18 


182, 000 


18 






19 


183, 000 


19 






20 


176,000 


20 






21 










167,000 
153, 000 


21 


22 


22 






23 


132,000 


23 






24 


112,000 


24 






9 


25 


97,700 


25 


29.2 

27.9 
31.6 
33.5 
32.3 
35.2 
44.8 




10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 


26 






166,000 
200,000 
218, 000 
207, 000 
235, 000 
337,000 


90, 900 


26 . . 


27 


82, 700 


27 


28 


78,200 


28 


29 


69, 700 


29 


30 




30 


31 




31 















COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO V.\LLEY. 



G3 



Table V^.- -Dailu gage height, infect, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line{50 feet) from 1859 to 191S — Contd. 



Day. 


December, 190G. 


January, 1907. 


February. 


March. 


April. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1906-7. 
1 






29.2 
31.0 
36.0 
41.7 
43.2 

41.2 
38.8 
38.1 
39.0 
38.7 

38.3 
39.4 
42.3 
44.0 
47.2 

51.1 
55.7 
59.4 
61.9 
64.1 

65.1 
64.6 
63.2 
61.2. 
58.1 

54.0 
48.0 
40.9 
32.8 
27.0 
22.0 


1 

178,000 20.5 
195,000 ; 22.5 


102, (H)0 






25.4 
26.3 
26.4 
25.6 
24.3 

22.8 
21.0 
20.5 
23.0 


144,000 
1.52 000 


•> 










3 






243,000 
302,000 
319,000 

297,000 
271,000 
264, 000 
274,000 
270, 000 










1.53 000 


4 














14') 0(10 
















134 000 


6 














121,000 
















106, 000 
102 000 


8 














9 










26.6 
25.3 

26.3 
27.3 
41.0 
50.3 
54.1 

57.6 
60.2 
61.6 
62.1 
61.3 

59.8 
57.5 
54.8 
52.3 
49.4 

45.7 
41.0 
35.3 
30.1 
26.3 
24.7 






10 










i43,6o6 

152,000 
161,000 
295, 000 
403.000 
450, 000 

496,000 
531,000 
550, 000 
556, 000 
546,000 

525, 000 
495,000 
459,000 
427,000 
392,000 

348, 000 
295,000 
236,000 
186,000 
152,000 
138,000 




11 






266,000 
278,000 
309,000 
328, 000 
365, 000 

412,000 
471,000 
520, 000 
554, 000 
583,000 

597, 000 
590, 000 
571,000 
544, 000 
503,000 

449, 000 
375, 000 
294,000 
212,000 
158, 000 
114,000 










12 














13 














14 














15 














16 














17 














18 














19 














20 














21 














22 














23 














24 














25 














26 














27 














28 


20.0 
18.0 
18.5 
24.6 












29 


83,400 
87, 100 
137, 000 










30 










31 
















Day. 


February. 


March. 


April. 


May. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1908. 
1 






<i21.7 
29.0 
34.8 
37.7 
41.0 

44.4 
48.4 
50.5 
51.6 
52.4 

53.2 
53.2 
51.9 
49.5 
45.0 

41.8 
37.5 
34.8 
34.8 
38.0 

41.0 
44.5 
47.5 
48.9 
48.2 

44.8 
41.7 
36.9 
32.5 
31.4 
6 31.0 


112,000 
176, 000 
231,000 
260,000 
295,000 

333,000 
380,000 
405,000 
419, 000 
429, 000 

439,000 
439,000 
422,000 
393, 000 
340,000 

303,000 
258,000 
231,000 
231,000 
263,000 

295,000 
334,000 
369, 000 
386, 000 
377,000 

337,000 
302,000 
252, 000 
209, 000 
198,000 
195,000 


37.2 
46.5 
53.1 
55.7 
54.9 

51.8 
46.7 
40.4 
36.5 
34.6 

33.0 
35.8 
39.0 
40.5 
40.0 

39.4 
36.5 
35.1 
32.0 
30.0 

28.6 
27.4 
27.0 
26.5 
26.1 

25.1 
25.3 
24.7 
23.1 
21.5 


255,000 
357,000 
437,000 
471,000 
461,000 

421,000 
359, 000 
288,000 
248, 000 
229, 000 

213,000 
241,000 
274,000 
289, 000 
284,000 

278,000 
248,000 
234, 000 
204, 000 
185,000 

173,000 
162,000 
158, 000 
154,000 
150,000 

141,000 
143,000 
138,000 
124,000 
110,000 


22.7 




2 








3 










4 










5 










6 




















8 










9 










10 










11 










12 










13 


22.4 
21.0 
34.5 

42.2 
45.0 
46.8 
49.2 
51.1 

50.9 
49.0 
45.0 
40.0 
33.8 

30.8 
27.6 
24.0 
22.3 


"i66,'666' 

228, 000 

308,000 
340,000 
361,000 
389,000 
412,000 

410,000 
387,000 
340, 000 
284, 000 
221,000 

193, 000 
163, 000 
132, 000 
117,000 






14 






15 






16 






17 






18 






19 . . 






20 






21 






22 






23 






24 






25 






26.. 






27 






28 






29 






30 






31 
























a Common to first and second floods. 



b Common to second and third floods. 



64 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MARCH-APEIL, 1913. 



Table 13. — Daily gage height, in feet, and discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1913 — Contd. 





- February. 


March. 


Day. 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1909. 
1 






54.1 
51.8 
48.5 
44.0 
39.1 

34.9 
33.5 
33.4 
34.6 
42.1 

42.3 
42.1 
40.7 
39.3 
37.0 

34.7 
32.1 
29.3 
26.6 
24.0 

22.0 
20.2 
18.6 
17.6 
17.2 

17.6 


450,000 
421,000 
381,000 
328, 000 
275,000 

232,000 
218,000 
217,000 
229, 000 
307, 000 

309, 000 
307,000 
291, 000 
277,000 
253,000 

230,000 
205,000 
179,000 
154,000 
132,000 

114,000 
100,000 
87,900 
80, 400 
77,500 


1910. 
1 






43.2 
41.2 
43.4 
46.8 
49.3 

51.0 
61.8 
. 51.0 
49.5 
47.3 

44.8 
41.8 
38.5 
34.4 
30.6 

27.2 
24.4 
22.2 
20.5 
19.3 

18.1 
16.9 
16.0 
15.4 
14.8 

14.9 


319,000 
297 000 


2 






2 






3 






3 






321, 000 


4 






4 






361,000 


5 






5 .. . . 






391,000 


6 


14.0 
13.6 
13.5 
14.5 
16.3 

19.5 
23.8 
26.6 
27.7 
30.0 

30.8 
31.8 
34.9 
38.2 
39.9 

39.9 
38.4 
36.6 
48.1 
52.2 

53.9 
54.3 
54.6 




6 






411, 000 


7 


53,500 
52,900 
59,000 
71, 100 

94, 700 
130,000 
154, 000 
164,000 
185,000 

193,000 
202, 000 
232, 000 
265,000 
283, 000 

283,000 
267,000 
249,000 
376,000 
426,000 

448,000 
453,000 
457, 000 


7 






421, 000 


8 


8 






411,000 


9 


9 






393, 000 
367, 000 


10 


10 






11 


11 . . 






337, 000 
303, 000 


12 


12 






13 


13 






268, 000 


14 


14 


14.7 
14.4 

16.0 
20.4 
22.8 
27.5 
31.0 

33.1 
35.6 
37.2 
38.0 
36.8 

34.8 
34.5 
43.5 




227, 000 


15 


15 


58,400 

69,000 
102,000 
121^000 
162,000 
195, 000 

214,000 
239,000 
255, 000 
263,000 
251,000 

231,000 
228, 000 
322,000 


191, 000 


16 


16. 


160, 000 


17 


17. ..'. 


135,000 


18 


18 


116, 000 


19 


19 


102, 000 


20 


20 


93, 200 


21 


21 


84, 100 


22 


22 . 


75, 300 


23 


23 


69,000 


24 . ... 


24 


65,000 


25 


25 


61,000 


26 


26 




27 




27 




28 ... 






28 






29 






29 






30 










30 










31 










31 

































March. 


Day. 


March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1912. 
1 






1912. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 


42.6 
44.0 
45.4 
46.6 
47.0 

46.5 
47.0 
45.2 
45.8 
50.2 

52.2 
53.2 
52.8 
51.6 
50.6 
48.1 


312, 000 
328,000 
344, 000 
358,000 
363,000 

357,000 
363,000 
342,000 
349, 000 
401,000 

426,000 
439,000 
434, 000 
419,000 
406,000 
376,000 


1912. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 


46.8 
46.8 
49.0 
50.5 
51.7 

51.7 
50.7 
48.6 
45.5 
41.4 

37.3 
33.9 
31.5 
29.8 
27.6 


361,000 
361,000 
387,000 
405,000 
420, 000 

420,000 
408,000 
382,000 
345,000 
299,000 

256,000 
222, 000 
199, 000 
184,000 
163,000 


1912. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 


25.9 
24.0 
24.8 
24.2 
25.4 


148, 000 


2 






132, 000 


3 






138,000 


4 






133, 000 


5 








6 








7 






22.. 






8 






23 






9 


20.2 
19.2 

20.4 
22.4 
25.4 
28.6 
37.2 




24 






10 


92, 400 

102,000 
118,000 
144,000 
173, 000 
255, 000 


25 






11 


26... . 






12 . 


27 






13.. 


28 






14 


29 






15 


30 















COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



65 



Table 13. — Daily gngc height, infect, ami discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River at Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, for all floods above the danger line {50 feet) from 1859 to 1913 — Contd. 





December, 1912. 


January, 1913. 


February. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
lioight. 


Dis- 
ehargo. 


Ciage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
licight. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height,. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1912-13. 
1 






11.0 
12.9 
17.9 
20.6 
22.2 

23.0 
27.3 
37.0 
44.3 

48.4 

51.8 
58.6 
61.1 
61.9 
61.5 

61.1 
60.9 
60.6 
56.0 
51.6 

49.0 
47.1 
45 5 
48.4 
47.5 

46.6 
46.0 
45.6 
44.2 
42.2 
39.4 


38,700 
49,300 
82.700 
103,000 
116,000 

123,000 
161,000 
253, 000 
331,000 
380,000 

421,000 
509,000 
543, 000 
554, 000 
548,000 

543, 000 
540, 000 
536,000 
475,000 
419,000 

387,000 
.364,000 
345, 000 
380, 000 
369,000 

3.58,000 
351,000 
346, 000 
330,000 
308,000 
278,000 


36.1 
32.4 
28.9 
26.8 
26.5 

27.9 


244,000 
208, (H)0 
175,000 
156,000 
154,000 






69.8 
69.5 
68.0 
66.0 
63.3 

57.8 
50.5 
42.8 
34.9 
31.3 

30.5 
27.3 
24.0 
24.1 


660,000 












650, 000 
636, 000 
609,000 
573,000 

499,000 


;i 










4 




















(i 






















405,000 
314,000 
232,000 
197,000 

190,000 
161,000 


8 












9 












10 


:::::i. :::;::::: 










11 












12. 












13 












132,000 


14 












15 












** 




16 


















17 


















18 


::;::::;: 














19 
















20 
















21. 
















22 


' 




















24.7 
22.6 
29.3 

50.3 
57.2 
62.6 
66.0 
67.9 
69.2 






24. . 








120,000 
179,000 

403,000 
491,000 
563,000 
609, 000 
635, 000 
652, 000 




















26 














27. 


8.8 
8.7 
9.5 
10.3 
10.8 












2S 


27,300 
31, 100 
35, 100 
37, 600 










29 










30.. 










31 





















Records in which two consecutive rises went above the danger 
line overlap one day, as, for example, March 31, 1908. 

The daily discharge was determined by using the gage height at 
the time of the regular reading as the mean gage height for tlie day, 
and therefore differs durmg periods of large diurnal fluctuation from 
the daily discharge that would be obtamed by using a mean gage 
height computed from a number of observations taken during each 
day, as, for example, from the record of an automatic gage. In general 
the only days on which more than one reading was available were 
those during the crest periods. It has been thought best, therefore, to 
use the regular readmg as the mean for the day, and it is probable 
that no material error in the total discharge for the flood has been 
thereby introduced. 

The ratmg tables used in the computations of daily discharge in 
all tables are provisional and subject to revision on a more complete 
study of the data than was possible in the preparation of this pre- 
liminary report. It is thought, however, that the tables are essen- 
tially correct and that changes resulting from any future revisions 
3833°— wsp 334—13 5 



66 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 



will be comparatively small, especially at the high stages covered 
by these tables. (See Table 18, p. 82.) 

Table 14 contains data similar to those in Table 13 for floods of 
1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March-April, 1913, at 
Wheeling, W. Va., Parkersburg, W. Va., Catlettsburg, Ky., Louis- 
vUle, Ky., and Evansville, Ind. 

Table 14. — Daily gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 
at selected stations for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 1913. 

Wheeling, W. Va. 





January. 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1884. 
1 






16.2 
29.2 
26.0 
20.0 
21.5 

35.0 
46.0 
47.0 
41.2 
38.0 

33.0 
29.5 
29.0 
26.5 
30.0 

32.5 
28.0 
22.5 
20.8 
20.8 

20.0 
19.3 
17.8 
15.1 
13.5 

12.2 
11.2 
11.2 
10.5 


94,000 
208,000 
178, 000 
126,000 
138,000 

265,000 
388,000 
401,000 
332,000 
297,000 

245,000 
211,000 
206,000 
183,000 
216, 000 

240,000 
197, 000 
147, 000 
132,000 
132,000 

126,000 
120,000 
107.000 
85,000 
72,500 

62,500 
55,000 
55,000 
49,600 


9.8 

8.4 
7.8 
7.3 
7.3 

7.2 
7.2 
7.0 

7.8 


44,700 
34, 700 


2 






3 






30,300 
26,900 
26, 900 

26, 200 


4 






s 






6 






7 






26, 200 


8 






25, 000 


9 


' 




10 








11 










12 










13 










14 










15 










16 










17 










18 










19 










20 










21 










22 










23 










24 










25 


6.8 

6.6 
7.0 
11.0 
10.8 
8.8 
11.9 








26 


22,300 
25,000 
53,300 
51,900 
37,500 
60, 100 






27 






28 






29 






30 






31 





















COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



67 



Table 14. — Daily gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feel, of Ohio River 
at selected stations I or floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 19 IJ — Coiitiiiued. 

Wheeling, W. Va.— Conthiued. 





December, 1906. 


January, 1907. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
heignt. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1900-7. 
1 






17.0 
19.8 
18.9 
16.3 
16.6 

18.2 
18.8 
16.7 
16.6 
20.2 

24.0 
21.0 
19.9 
26.3 
28.0 

31.4 

28.9 
27.2 
31.6 
36.1 

35.9 
29.3 
21.9 
16.9 
13.1 

10.9 
9.9 
9.7 
8.3 
7.9 

07.6 


101,000 
124,000 
116,000 
94,800 
97,300 

110,000 
116,000 
98,000 
97,300 
127,000 

160,000 
134,000 
125,000 
181,000 
197,000 

230,000 
205,000 
189, 000 
231,000 
277,000 

275,000 
209,000 
142,000 
100,000 
69,500 

52,500 
45,400 
44,000 
34,000 
31,000 
29,000 






14.9 
12.3 
10.9 

9.8 
9.0 

8.6 
8.0 
S.O 
8.1 


83, 500 


2 










63,200 


3 










52, 500 


4 










44, 700 


5 . . 










39, 000 


6 










36,000 
31,900 












8 












9 






8.8 
8.5 

9.3 

9.5 

17.5 

37.9 

47.8 

48.9 
38.0 
27.9 
22.8 
25. 1 

31.8 
29.3 
23.0 
17.9 
15.8 

13.9 
13.0 
16.5 
18.9 
19.7 
18.0 






10.. . . 






35,300 

41,000 

42,500 

105,000 

296,000 

411,000 

424,000 
297,000 
196, 000 
150,000 
170,000 

233,000 
209,000 
151,000 
108,000 
90,800 

75,800 
68, 600 
96,400 
116,000 
123,000 
109,000 




11 










12 










13 










14 . 










15 










16 










17 










18 










19 -. 










20 










21 










22 










23 










24 










25 










26 










27 


7.0 
6.9 
7.2 
10.8 
15.6 








28 . 


24,300 
26,200 
51,900 
89, 100 






29 






30 






31 















March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1913. 
16 






1913. 
1 


28.3 
18.3 
15.5 
13.9 
12.8 

11.5 
10.5 
9.5 
9.3 
7.0 

7.8 


200,000 
111,000 


17 






2 


18 






3 


88, 200 
75 800 


19 






4 


20 






5 


67, 100 


21 






6 


57,000 


22 






7 


49, 600 


23 


8.3 
7.5 
11.5 

30.5 
45.5 
50.8 
50.0 
43.0 
32.1 




8 


42 400 


24 


28,300 
57,000 

220,000 
383,000 
448,000 
439,000 
353, 000 
236,000 


9 


41,000 


25 


10 


25,000 


26 


11 




27 


12 




28 


13 






29 


14 






30 


15 






31.. . 













a Gage height 7.9 on Feb. 1. 



68 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 



Table 14. — Daily gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 
at selected stations for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 1913 — Continued. 

Parkersburg, W. Va. 





December, 1906. 


January, 1907. 


February. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1906-7. 
1 






17.4 
19.3 
20.4 
19.9 
19.8 

20.7 
21.6 
21.2 
23.9 
23.9 

24.5 
25.0 
29.3 

27.8 
32.0 

34.4 
36.3 
38.4 
38.0 
39.3 

39.9 
39.1 
34.8 

28.0 
23.0 

19.2 
16.1 
14.0 
12.0 
10.4 
8.5 


114,000 
132,000 
142, 000 
138,000 
136,000 

145,000 
154,000 
150,000 
177, 000 
177, 000 

184,000 
189,000 
233,000 
217,000 
262,000 

289,000 
311,000 
335,000 
330,000 
346,000 

352,000 
342,000 
293,000 
219, 000 
168,000 

130,000 
101,000 
81,000 
63,000 
49,500 
33,000 


10.0 








17.6 
14.9 
12.7 
11.4 
. 10.0 

9.4 
9.2 
9.2 
9.8 


116,000 
89, 000 


2 












3 














69, 500 


4 














57,500 
46, 000 


5 














6 














40,000 
38,500 


7 














8 














9 










10.0 
9.6 

11.9 
12.2 
18.0 
37.0 
48.1 

51.4 
50.9 
43.6 
40.0 
35.0 

34.2 
34.7 
32.0 
26.0 
20.4 

16.6 
14.5 
13.4 
16.1 
19.1 
19.4 






10 










42,000 

62,000 

64,500 

120, 000 

318, 000 

453,000 

495,000 
488,000 
397,000 
353,000 
295,000 

286,000 
292, 000 
262,000 
199,000 
142,000 

106,000 
86,000 
75,000 
101,000 
129, 000 
132,000 




11 














12 














13 














14 








. 






15 














16 














17 














18 














19 














20 














21 














22 














23 














24 














25 














26 














27 


8.4 
7.8 
11.0 
10.6 
13.8 












28 


27,000 
54,000 
50, 500 
80,000 










29... 










30 










31 























March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1913. 
16 






1913. 
1 


47.5 
38.1 
27.2 
19.5 
16.5 

15.8 
14.2 
12.9 
11.8 
10.9 

10.5 
10.8 


445,000 
331,000 


17 






2 


18 






3 


210, 000 


19 






4 .... 


134,000 
105, 000 


20 






5 


21 






6 


98, 000 
S3, OUO 


22 






7 


23 


10.0 
9.5 
10.0 

22.1 
43.0 
54.9 
58.7 
57.9 
53.8 




8 


71,000 


24 


41,000 
46,000 

160,000 
390,000 
540,000 
589,000 
579,000 
526,000 


9 ... 


61,000 


25.. 


10 


53, 000 


26 


11 


50,000 


27 


12 


28 


13 




29 


14 






30 


15 






31 













COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



69 



Tabt,i; 14. Daili/ gof/r height, infect, and ilaily discharge, in second-feel , of Ohio River 
at selected stations for Jloods of lS<^j , Januani, 11)07, March April, 1!)07, and March- 
April, 1013 — ( '( intinued. 

Catlettsburg, Ky. 





December, 1906. 


January, 1907. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gago 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gago 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1906-7. 
1 






25.7 
27.7 
29.6 
30.4 
31.6 

30.0 
29.4 
29.6 
30.7 
32.8 

33.9 
33.7 
38.0 
41.0 
42.7 

47.8 
52.4 
55.4 
59.0 
59.9 

58.4 
56.4 
53.0 
50.6 
45.0 

37.0 
28.0 
21.8 
17.5 
15.0 
O14.0 


153,000 
172,000 
191,000 
200, 000 
212,000 

196,000 
189,000 
191,000 
203,000 
220,000 

239,000 
236,000 
287,000 
324, 000 
345,000 

410,000 
470,000 
509, 000 
555,000 
568,000 

548,000 
522,000 
477, 000 
446,000 
374,000 

274,000 
175,000 
119,000 
85, 500 
60,000 
62,500 






24.6 
23.8 
22.4 
20. ■) 
18.4 

17.0 
18.3 


14.3,000 
1.36,000 
124,000 


•J 










3 










4 










107, 0(M) 
92 000 












6 










82,000 


7 










8 






21.4 
20.0 
19.9 

22.5 
23.8 
28.6 
37.2 
49.0 

57.2 
59.8 
60.4 
59.6 
56.4 

52.3 
49.0 
47.0 
44.0 
39.6 

33.5 
27.2 
23.8 
20.5 
21.9 
24.0 






9 












10 






103,000 

124,000 
136,000 
181, 000 
277,000 
426,000 

532,000 
566,000 
574,000 
564, 000 
522,000 

469, 000 
426,000 
400, 000 
362, 000 
306, 000 

233,000 
167,000 
1,36, 000 
108, 000 
120, 000 
138,000 






U .... . .. 










12 










13 










14 .... 










15 










16 










17 










18 










19 ..... .- .... 










20 








.^.. 


21 










22 










23 . 










24 










25 










26 












15.0 
13.5 
15.0 
22.0 
24.0 








28 


59, 500 
69, 000 
120,000 
138,000 






29 






30 






31 















March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 

height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 

cliarge. 


1913. 
16 






1913. 
1 


6 66.5 

6 65. 3 

6 60.7 

53.2 

43.5 

33.5 

27.0 

22.6 

19.7- 

17.5 

16.1 
15.6 
15.9 


654,000 


17 






2 


638, 000 
578, 000 


18 . . 






3 


19 






4 


480, 000 


20 








356, 000 


21 






0. 


234,000 
165, 000 


22 






7 


23 






8 


126, 000 


24 . ... 


15.8 
15.5 

17.2 
41.1 
57.5 
65.1 
66.3 
67.7 


""72," 666' 

83,000 
325,000 
536,000 
636, 000 
052, 000 
669, 000 


9 


101,000 


25 


10 


85, 500 


26 


11 


75, 500 
72,500 


27 


12 


28 


13 




29 


14 




:'.o 


15 ... . 






31 













a Gage height on Feb. 1 is 14.5. 

i> Gage heights Apr. 1, 2, and 3 obtained by comparison with Huntington. 



70 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAKCH-APEIL, 1913. 



Table 14. — Daily gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 
at selected stations for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 1913 — Continued. 

Louisville, Ky. (Lower gage.) 





January. 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1884. 
1 






34.0 
40.6 
45.5 
48.3 
51.6 

57.6 
62.8 
64.1 
65.6 
65.7 

66.0 
67.1 
68.8 
70.5 
71.7 

72.0 
71.3 
70.1 
68.5 
67.1 

65.2 
62.5 
59.2 
55.7 
51.0 

46.4 
42.6 
36.2 
31.5 


272,000 
350,000 
412,000 
449, 000 
493,000 

577,000 
652, 000 
671,000 
694, 000 
695, 000 

700,000 
716, 000 
742, 000 
769, 000 
787, 000 

792, 000 
781,000 
762,000 
738, 000 
716, 000 

688.000 
648; 000 
600, 000 
550,000 
485,000 

424, 000 
375, 000 
297,000 
244,000 


27.1 
23.9 
22.6 
20.5 
19.0 

18.0 
18.0 
19.0 


198,000 
165, 000 


2 






3 






153,000 
133, 000 
119, 000 


4 






5 






6 , 






111 000 


7 






111 000 


8 








9 








10 










11 










12 










13 










14 










15 










16 










17 










18 : 










19 










20 










21 










22 










23 : 










24 










25 










26 










27 










28 


17.5 
15.0 
15.8 
23.5 










85,400 
92, 000 
162,000 






30 






31 























December, 1906. 


January, 1907. 


February. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge., 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


- 1906-7. 
1 






27.8 
32.4 
39.8 
45.4 
48.1 

47.0 
44.2 
41.0 
40.8 
40.5 

39.7 
40.0 
43.2 

44.4 
47.3 

51.6 
55.7 
58.9 
61.7 
64.2 

66.1 
66.9 
66.8 
65.8 
64.2 

61.4 
57.7 
52.4 
44.8 
36.2 
27.9 


205,000 
254,000 
340, 000 
411, 000 
446,000 

432,000 
395, 000 
355,000 
353, 000 
349,000 

339,000 
343, 000 
383,000 
398,000 
436, 000 

493,000 
550,000 
595, 000 
636,000 
673, 000 

701, 000 
713,000 
712, 000 
697, 000 
673,000 

632, 000 
578, 000 
504,000 
403, 000 
297, 000 
206,000 


23.0 
22.0 
23.0 


157,000 


2 






147, 000 


3 








4 








5 










6 










7 










8 










9 . 










10 










11 










12 










13 










14 










IS 










16 










17 










18 . 










19 










20 










21 










22 










23 .... 


............ 






24 










25 










26 










27 










28 


20.6 
19.0 
19.4 
22.0 








29 


119, 000 
123,000 
147, 000 






30 






31 













COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



71 



Tahle l-i.—Dailji gage height, in feet, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 
at selected stations for floods of 1S84, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 1913 — C'ontituied. 

Louisville, Ky.— Continued. 





February. 


March, 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1907. 
1 






22.0 
23.5 
24.3 
26.8 
28.6 

29.8 
29.2 
28.2 
27.4 
26.7 

27.4 
27.4 
39.2 
49.8 
55.0 

57.8 
59.0 
60.3 
61.2 
61.5 

61.0 
60.1 
57.8 
56.4 
53.9 

50.8 
47.0 
41.4 
35.6 
29.8 
24.6 


153,000 
162,000 
169, 000 
195,000 
213,000 

226,000 
220, 000 
209,000 
201,000 
193,000 

201,000 
201,000 
333,000 
469,000 
540,000 

580,000 
597,000 
616, 000 
629,000 
633,000 

626, 000 
613,000 
580,000 
560,000 
525,000 

483,000 
432,000 
360,000 
290,000 
226,000 
172,000 


23.0 
22.4 
22.6 
23.4 
23.0 

21.8 
20.2 
19.2 
19.2 
21.2 


157,000 


2 






151,000 


3 






153,000 


4 






161,000 


5 






157,000 


6 






145,000 








130,000 


8 






121,000 


9. ... 






121,000 


10 








11 








12 










13.. 










14 










15 . 










16 










17 










18 • 








19 . ; 










20 










21 










22 • . . . . 










23 


15.8 
15.6 

15.8 

17.4 
19.4 
21.6 










90,300 
92,000 

105,000 
123,000 
143,000 












26 












28 






29 






30 










31 























March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1913. 
16 






1913. 
1 


70.2 
70.5 
70.1 
69.2 
68.3 

66.4 
63.2 
58.3 
51.5 
44.5 

39.5 
36.4 
31.0 
26.0 
24.2 


764,000 
769,000 
762,000 
748, 000 
735,000 

706, 000 
658. 000 
587, 000 
492, 000 
399,000 

337, 000 
300, 000 
239, 000 
186,000 
168,000 


1913. 
16 


24.0 
28.8 
26.0 


166,000 
164,000 


17 






2 


17 


18 






3 


IS 


19 






4 


19 




20 








20 






21 






6 


21 






22 






7 


'^2 






23 


27.3 
24.6 
28.6 

48.1 
59.3 
64.2 
66.7 
68. 3 
69.3 




8 


23 






24 


172,000 
213,000 

446, 000 
601,000 
673, 000 
710. 000 
735,000 
7.50, 000 


9 


24 








10 








26 


11 


26 






27 


12 


27 






28 


13 


28 






29 


14 


29 






.30 


15 


30 






31 















72 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MARCH-APEIL, 1913. 



Table 14. — Daily gage height, in feel, and daily discharge, in second-feet, of Ohio River 
at selected stations for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, WIS — Continued. 

Evansville, Ind. 





January. 


February. 


March. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 

charge. 


Gage D is- 
height. charge. 


1884. 
1... 






24.0 
29.0 
32.8 
36.3 
38.3 

41.2 
42.5 
44.2 
44.8 
45.2 

45.6 
46.1 
46.3 
46.8 
47.2 

47.6 
47.8 
48.0 
48.0 
47.7 

47.5 
46.5 
46.2 
46.0 
45.3 

43.6 
42.5 
41.0 

38.7 


224,000 
300,000 
365, 000 
430, 000 
468, 000 

526,000 
552, 000 
587, 000 
600,000 
608,000 

616, 000 
627, 000 
631,000 
642, 000 
650, 000 

657, 000 
663,000 
667, 000 
667, 000 
661,000 

657,000 
635, 000 
629, 000 
625,000 
610,000 

575, 000 
552, 000 
522, 000 
476, 000 


37. 6 455, 000 


2 






36.5 434,000 


3 






32. 4 358, 000 


4 






31. 7 346, 000 


5 






29. 300, 000 


6 






26.0 253,000 


7 






24. 224, 000 


8 






22. 196, 000 


9 






21.4 188,000 


10 . . 






22.2 


1\ 








12 






' 


13 








14 








15 








16 .. 








17 








18 








19 




- 




20 








21 








22 








23 








24 








25 








26 








27 








28 


15.7 
14.7 
15.7 
18.0 






29 


110, 000 
120, 000 
146,000 




30 




31 



















December, 1906. 


January, 1907. 


February. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1906-7. 
1 






21.7 
24.0 
30.0 
35.1 
37.9 

39.6 
40.3 
40.3 
39.9 
39.5 

38.8 
38.4 
38.3 
38.5 
39.0 
39.8 
40.7 
42.0 
43.4 
44.2 

44.9 
45.4 
45.9 
46.2 
46.2 

46.1 
45.9 
45.5 
44.8 
43.5 
41.7 


192,000 
224,000 
317,000 
407,000 
461,000 

494, 000 
508,000 
508,000 
500,000 
492, 000 

478,000 
470,000 
468, 000 
472, OuO 
482,000 

498, 000 
516,000 
542,000 
571,000 
587, 000 

602,000 
612,000 
623, 000 
629,000 
629, 000 

627, 000 
623, 000 
614, 000 
600,000 
573, 000 
536,000 


39.0 
36.6 
33.8 
30.6 
29.5 

28.3 
27.7 
27.1 
26.2 
25.4 

23.6 
22.0 
20.2 
18.9 
18.0 

17.4 
17.1 
16.7 
16.1 
15.6 

15.2 
14.7 
14.6 
14.4 
14.7 


482,000 
436,000 
383, 000 


2 






3 






4 








5 








6 








7 








8 








9 








10 








11 








12 








1 








14 








15 








16 








17 








18 








19.. 








20 








21 








22 








23 








24 








25 








26 








27 










28 










29 


23.4 
20.4 
21.0 








30 


175,000 
183, 000 






31 













COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



73 



Table 14. — Daily (jagc Juight, infect, and daily discharge, in second-feel , of Ohio River 
at selected stations for Jloods of isS-'i, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 191S — Contimied. 

EvansvlUe, Ind.— Continued. 





February. 


March. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


PLs- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1907. 
1 






20.5 
22.3 
23. 9 
24.7 
25.4 

26. 3 
27.2 
27.8 
27.8 
27.5 

27.3 
27.2 
27.4 
.31.3 
36.3 

39.0 
40.9 
42.0 

42.7 
43.2 

43.5 
43.7 
43.8 
43.6 
43.2 

42.7 
41.9 
41.0 
39.6 
37.8 
34.9 




31.1 
26.7 
23.1 
21.0 
20.1 

19.9 
19.7 
21.2 
18.5 
17.7 

17.6 
18.5 


3.36,000 








264, (KK) 


;5 








211,0(K) 


4 








183, 0(K) 










172,000 


C 








109,000 










167,000 


8. 








186,000 


9 








1.52,000 


10. 








143,000 


11 








141,000 


12 






271,000 
275,000 
339,000 
430,000 

482,000 
520, 000 
542,000 
556,000 
567,000 

573,000 
577,000 
579,000 
.575,000 
507,000 

550,000 
540,000 
522,000 
494,000 
459,000 
404,000 


13 








14. 










15 










16 










17 










18 










19 










20 










21 










22 . 










23 


14.6 
14.4 
14.7 

16 
17.5 
19.0 








24. . . . . . 








25 








26 








27 








28 
















,30 










31 























March. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


April. 


Day. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gasje 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


Gage 
height. 


Dis- 
charge. 


1913. 
16 






1913. 
1 


"46.4 
47.2 

47.8 
48.2 
48.3 

48.1 
47.9 
47.5 
45.7 
45. 8 

44.4 
42.7 
41.1 
39.3 
36.8 


6.33,000 
650,000 
663,000 
671,000 
674,000 

669,000 
665,000 
657, 000 
640,000 
621,000 

591,000 
556,000 
524,000 [ 
488,000 
439,000 


1913. 
16 


34.3 
31.8 
29.8 
28.0 
27.1 

26.6 
25.9 
24.6 
22.8 
21.0 


393,000 
348,000 
313,000 
284,000 
270,000 


17 






2 ... 


17 


18 






3 


18 


19 






4 


19 


20 






5 


20 


21 . . . 






6 


21 


22 






7 


99 




23 






8 


23 




24 


27.5 
26.0 

30.1 
.36.6 
40.4 
43.0 
44.4 
45.4 


"'253,666 

318,000 
436. 000 
510,000 
562,000 
591,000 
612,000 


9 


24 




25 


10 


25 


.. 


26 


11 


26 




27 


12 


27 






28 


13 


28 






23^ 


14 


29 • 






30 


15 


30 






31 















Table 15 contains a summary of flood-flow records of Ohio River 
at Cincinnati, Ohio, for all floods above danger line (50 feet) from 
1859 to 1913 given in Table 13. The total discharge of the entire 
flood represents the entire volume of the run-ofl' for the period from 



74 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAKCH-APRIL, 1913. 

trough to trough. The maximum daily discharge is the discharge 
obtained from the maximum daily gage height and is therefore not 
the maximum rate of discharge that occurred during the flood unless 
the maximum daily gage height happens to represent the crest stage. 
The total discharge for the period when the stage was above 50 feet 
is the total discharge for the number of whole days during which the 
regular daily gage-height reading was above 50 feet. For most 
periods this total will not be identical with that which would have been 
obtained by constructing a hydrograph of discharge and taking from it 
the total discharge above the stage of 50 feet. The values in this 
table, however, are as close as the number of observations warrant, 
and the errors thus introduced are more or less compensating. 

The excess discharge during the period when the stage was above 
50 feet is the difference obtained by subtracting from the total dis- 
charge for the period the total discharge that would result if the stage 
remained at 50 feet for the number of days in the period. This excess 
represents the volume by which the flow- at Cincinnati would have had 
to be reduced durmg these periods in order to keep the stage from 
going above 50 feet. The explanation of the discharge data during 
periods when the stage was above 54 and 57 feet is identical with 
the above, 54 or 57 being substituted for 50 feet. The stages selected 
are those at danger line, 4 feet above danger line, and 7 feet above 
danger line. 



COMPAEISON OF TUE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY, 



75 



-^ 



'^i^ 



f^ a 



o 
o 



W 



0°^ 

3 fc <S 



■5 a 



a© g, 

•^ V (Z 



I-. 3 

■^ a 
go 



a?^ 



l»&a 






>■ c o 
I ca g a> 



-^^SS^i 



2^^. 

3 0^ p3 




o o o 

■-I O CO 

T-l *:t* >f:i 
co"o"»o" 



!Dc5 



- r, a '30 



t:;S 



OQ OO 

oo o o 
-r OO 1-1 



sss 



ooo 

88? 



-ft IM . rt' iO i-H 



OOOOOOQOOOQOO 



= 0000 

> .-H OJ O 00 



^00C^OCC'TH0iC0C0i-H(N»C'0^ 



g5S' 



0000000000000 
OOOOOOOOOOOQQ 
0000000000000 

C/TciO oTcTi^f O r^oi"o"or»0 CD "^ 

—( CO 00 c^ 1-H 1-H T-H c^ <N Meot-4 



JCOCO'^CO-l'COiOC^cDOO**!* 



OOOOOOOOOOO-^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 53 



OOOOOOOOOOiOOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOiOO 
■^COU^'-HiOiOC^-^OlTHOlcOOOOOOOiOt— lOcOOOTfr-HCCOOi-H 

10 ^-^c^r-rT3rco"orr-rco t^ o'crcDc»ot-roc^<>^cc'co'G<rco'ccci"co" _ 

wcoc^ th-^c^t-i r-i ^ wo -^ ca CM CO o •* ca 10 r- c^ co .iS 



-TfOSC-^cOcOCOOiCCOO.— it^iOOC^fOOOl'^COC^OO'HC 



^,~^ ^,-H CO CO OS tP (M ,-1 W CO CC CO CO "^ c 



t-- O X f-H »o I^ I^ t^ (N M^ - 



) -r^ TP 0:1 T-H CM 



^ bO 



000000000000000000000000000 oi 



000000000000000000000000000 

OOOOOOOOCOOOiOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 



0'^ClCMCMCOO^COCiOCOOiO'^CncOCM»OCMCMCOOOGO»0<-HCM 
.. ^cot^i-- 

^CM CO 



t^C0i0CMt^CMc0'**i-t»OC0CMOiO05^»0»0C0000000t^OCDCM0> 



r-<ob-cocNooo^HCMcD'*cMOcooc«or^05oo^-cococ:5CMoocoi-i 

CMiOC0»COCM<NCMcD00 00'^t-T-HOCMC0O'^00i0O'-<CM'^»0O 

CDcdcdu:5CO<:DCDcDuOiO»OiOcOo6o^cOOCDcOcOcDccJt^t^cOiOO 



000000000000000000000000000 
000000000000000000000000000 
000000000000000000000000000 

^ I -^ co" oi o" :j:r cT T-T CO -i^ c<^ i-T Gc cd" tN o cQ^ cs" i-T w' r^ ^-^ 



sa 

-03 



8 a 

o m 

8 •'3 



;■;■;;;; ;<N I I ;;;;;;;; ;"7 ;:;; ; 

CC -J ' -^ (N »0 (^ . ■ ^ A t- CO ^' »o' ^r c^ '. I I CD »0 O CO 5^ ' * f^ 

pi^ ^ S S fxH g ^ <5^ ^ ^ Ph Pm f:^ PL, Ph < fiH S S S f^ (in pi< S S <1 <i 



■^t-1— toio^i--c^Oi-H»o-^ocor^'^CMcocoooTtir>.cooiC^cD 

COi-(i-HOl^050cDi-10ii-HCN»CMCSOSOSt>.t-*i-IOO»OcOt-GO'<1<CMt^ 

coc6'^'co-^^coc^coc4c6co'^'^'^c4co^"^co'^co^c^coc^co 



*2^ 



000000000000000000000000000 

OOOOOOOOiOOOOOOOOCiOOOOOOOOOO 

000000000000000000000000000 
o^t^co CO c£rcoco"co oTcD^c^o^oTo cTto o -^o^o c^^^T^ 

OCCO-^Ot-t-rt^CMOOOOScOiOi— l^-C^r-CO-^t— OGOCOOCDh-.— I ^^ ^ 
c0iOi0"^iOt>C000iO"^C0iOt^i-HCMO05'^C0i-lOI:^i00it0I;^O ^ 



SxJ 



CMc0CMC<)OCMCMG0asc005iOt--OO0DO'^'*l^b-C0t^000iC0»O 
COCMCMCM--IC^IC01^C<ICQiMCMCl*rt^CO'*'*i-IC^'^COCOi-l'*C<l»OCM 



as 



^•3 



u 



SSot 






! rt Pi's 5 
1 N'-' .H<^* 



2 fto3 C3 

"^ '^ CO CO 



J - 00 .r-i 

c c c >^>* 

CJ ^ ^ ^ c^ 

(M ,-1 r-l 1-1 ■-! 



to ® c> 

» Mb. 



,u 



I I 



I I 



^ (-1 ^ fc- U <D 



<f J3 Qi 

01 (N "A . . . _ . . . - ^ ^ ^ 

iocDcocDcDcor^i^i^r^ooccc^QOccGC'<y:)00a5CiCiO^OiCiCso^o 

00 00 GC C/D 00 GO fX5 GC 'X MD CC " —^ ^ ' ^ -' " ^ 



iliici-Uiiicl^oliii 

ccc^QOccGC'<y:)ooa5CiCiO^OiCiCso^o 
c<:QOcy:oocyDoooooooOGCcca:-GOOC'CCCTi 



o £ a 
fiW is 



•joqiunN 



rHC^C0*1"0CDt^G0ClO^(NC0'^»C>C0r^0005OT-<C^C0''^iOC0t^ 
■-(t-(i-lrH>-(r-lT-li-l>-lrH<NC<lC^C^C^e^NC» 



76 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APKIL, 1913. 



Q 
J 



'^ 



•^ 



O 



'6 



te; 



13 
O 
O 



1§ 



IZ;^'^ 



"3 «£ • 



O OJ 



■ dT? CD £ • 

t> CJ O 4J H-r^ 



s^ 



;z;^'a 



Socoooooooooooo 

^H»Oi— lOCOOt^OOCOOSCOOiOO 
(N Oi T-H rH (M tH 05 CI 



oooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 

o"c<rTtr^o~^^io"a^i>roo"co^crc^ 

OOOcOOt-t^{M»r:KMO^-^"*CO 
rtrt lO •* (N i-H C<< .H (N .-H -^ CO 



OOiOi-H^H^(NO"*OCOO'^OCO 



T— It^OiOO-^rt^Oii-HCOiOO-^T-lT-H 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

cT r-T r-T r-T o" (tT c^ r-T tC r-T oT cT ^ o" 

^HCOOOiOt-HCCt^iO<MCOC^LOO 



03 • d, 3 g3 m 03 ft o5 IS 03 p, R cL 



(N I>- 05 Tt* OD 05 O "O t^ Tji lO (NO 
C<l C^ «:> CO OS ■* rH <N O Ol C5 OOf© 

CO tP c4 Tt< CO CO "^ CO CO (N CO c6>o 



oooooooooo o oo 

O O O t3C:> CCD O O O O CD o 

oooooooooo o oo 

i>rt-rt-rio"r-ror.-TorcD i-T o" cTcT 

CO C^ I— I Ol 1>. oo CO t^ "^ lO CD O !>• 

I> t^ O 05 1> CO oo O C5 t^ O O t^ 



lO CO lO lO O !>■ 1-H 1— I t- OS T-i Or 

w-oc^cococothcoco'^co -n^ Tt^C 



ii' 



)4< 



.^3 



(M<M(N Si-Hi-l 






ftt-. 03 ft ^ 

I "-H I "OO I 0-* 
r-<0Ot--rtrt(N glN 

rv( /ri rit r:;, 03 ft I "^ 



^ 05 

,, Sfq ^ 

DOt^OOOOOOOiOC<l(NCSl 



sls^a^cis 



•laqinnM 



OOOOOOOOOi- 
05050^000050i0500SOOO 



OOOiOTH(NCO'<J<lOOb-OOOiOi-l 



COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 77 

Tabic 16 contains a summary of flood-flow records of Ohio liiver 
at Wheeling, Parkersburg, Catlcttsburg, Cincirmati, Louisville, and 
Evansvillc, for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, 
and March-April, 1913, given in Table 14. Data in Table 16 are 
arranged so as to brmg out a comparison of the flow of the different 
floods at each station. The data in this table are similar to the data 
in Table 15 and the explanation is identical, with the proper changes 
in the values for danger line, 4 feet above danger line, and 7 feet 
above danger line at the difTerent stations. 

Table 17 contains a summary of flood-flow records of Ohio River 
for floods of 1884, January, 1907, March-April, 1907, and March- 
April, 1913, at Wlieehng, Parkersburg, Catlettsburg, Cincinnati, 
Louisville, and EvansviUe, identical with that in Table 16, but 
arranged so as to bring out a comparison of the flow at the different 
stations for the given floods. 



78 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 



'S. 



^ 



SO ^ 

>0 Ob 






o 
o 






1^^ 

^^ 13 

s:- 

§^ 

O 
















00 








, 






i=i5i 




in 


S| 




t- 


^00 




6 


9"® 
•3 


w 

















00 




S 




y 


00 






C3 




(xT 






CO 


5^ 





t^ y-t 




























=2 




















03 






^ 




°"S >> 




1 






Z 03 

■^ -Til 






































o3 


d 


Bt 


8 


■^ 


00 


§ 

W 


§ 


.go 


1^ 






a 





Md 







00 


a 














^ fl 


03 






m 













a 

CD 


n 


Q 


en 




^ 
















t3 














''^ °^ 






Tf 


























fL, 




^ 


B_ 


s"§i 




;]J 


Fi-^ 









**l* 


S 


X 






c 


f^3 


w 






0000 














c3 " 











^ d 

M 2 


o3 


sfsfE^^" 






S" 


^ 


T-H .-1 t-H 




O) 










•S 


























m 




e-'i 








"2 S3 £ . 


(MIM T-I.-H 







CO ^ ^>^ 06 








ca 










02=2 M 






, 


0000 














d -i^ 




>> 




« 




















a 
















D 










1 




-2 


00 


ass 


03 • 






-gd ^ ^ 


s 
























• 


fe"aag.2 


•OOC^lO 




bjo 


<^^iM^^ 


lOrJi iOCD 




03 







fl 

g 


VJ 




. 


0000 


rs 


g| 


0000 


2 






03 


So 


■^ CO t^ IM 














m 
















<< t3 






^ 






















m -^ 1 




qa 




"^ d . . 




■R 




!^ 03 ■« H 




1 


























^~ 




' 



> ". 



s ft 



CO rH CO 
OS CO 10 



d 03 03 



& u u 
H7 p. ft 

CJ.-KN 

cS 03 



= o 



d 0; c3 






00^ 



COMPARISON OF THE FLOODS IN THE OHIO VALLEY. 



79 



M\ 



o o ; 

1-. » c5 o 



QJ f— tJ* ^ 



OC -^ CCiO 









-^ Tji cOiO 






M -9 

i o 



o oo o 

oi^ o en 
ai ■^ <-( o 



CTl -^ T-H rt^ 



t-- CC OS ^ 

00 t-^ooc 



o _; fc-. ^1 









gC CT) O^ Oi 









oo rti^ 



oo o o 

O' O' o o 

o oo o 

o"o"crc<o" 



t^ O^ Oi "^ 



00 4* CO 



-i-"o r-^c^ 

00 OO"-! 
00 OS OS OS 



£? a 



^a-; 






80 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAKOH-APEIL, 1913. 



a, 



«, CO 

I '^^ 

^ CO 



.o >» 

go 

i-C CO 



o 
o 











a 






000 




















1 

is 






m 










.ga 




^ 


t^ 




Oi CO ^ 




CJ3 


£?5 

S 3 




w 


































000 






.aS 














> 














P = 







00 






















^ 


g 






















1 




3 '-^ C3 


(M 




10 CD tH 
,-lr-(CM 


1 

> 






^^^ 














e 


Q 






^ 


q 


rtS 




S 







000 






.y>E 




g 










Ss 


^3 

II 










^ 






H 


















^3 










000 


m 


> 











oro"cr 


CO 












1 


a 










oooc^ 


Num- 
ber of 
days. 


CO 




1^ CO 




_jj 

















CD 











000 






q.-. 




























.g 


t*^ 




H 






IMC-1 'I' 




^ a 
.90 

OS 











000 


















9 




03 






oTo'o" 
















a 












M 














§"!^ 


rj< 




Oio 00 








3 ss ^ 














^^^ 














ni c3 ® . 














g as® 


<M 




01^ (N 


; 


a 
3 




IIS"^ 


CO 




OiOOCO 




3 












1 


3 




-3 














rt*i 






000 


















8 
























I 


3 

3 




02 






















; 


^ 




_S 


00 




TPCDr-H 


h 


-- 
S 
^ 




ft 


























» 


^•aia|» 


s 




OlOAiO 








t- ® ^j 3 •-< 












s 








1=) s 


^ 





























000 






OJ 


^ 

























S^ 








1 










rH T-) T-) 


3 




" 






















tc 


.3 




3 jr! ^ 


5 




COCO^ 
















p 


J 




es 
ft 


% 

ci 




Jh S.^ t^ 
1 1 1 

fl 3 

CQ C3 CQ 










I CS 














:> 








i 




3g, W. Va 
burg, W. 
burg, Ky. 
ati, Ohio . 
He, Ky... 
ille, Ind.. 






m 
















1 

4- 
03 



Ciacirm 
Louisvi 
Evansv 



Mi-iaoo 



coooooo 

00 00 O (O o 

Oi-H 000 



10 r-t 1— I 05 -^ 
i-H 10 IM .— I CO 



000000 

O O 0> O O' o 
Ci O O O O O 

Co'-lT rfH^^oTcT 

C<] t- »o O .-H o:. 

1—1 CO to '^O CO 



^cO00l-^T-^ O 



■^ N 00 t— CO 

(M CO TJH 00 00 OS 

1— I Oi 05 l>> l> 10 



000000 

O O O OiO o 

000000 



r- c^ 00 t^ CO o 

t^ lO O OS tH (N 
(M CO »0 10 t- CO 



O .-i O T-i (M (M 
(>) CM CS (N (M "L 



OOOO"* lOOO 
00 t- Tji CO o 10 



c> o 00 o o 
000000 
000000 

co'ccTco'to'o'cr 

CO CO 1-H OS tH T-H 

CO 10 00 OS CO »o 



m 10 10 10 CO (lD 
CO CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO CO '-^ "^^ ^ 

00 00 00 0> <3S o 
<N (N (M C^ tN CO 




.13 



COMPAKISON OF THE FLOODS IN TUE OUIO VALLEi'. 



81 



^ ;C O 'O -C 'O 



(N 00 CO O O^ fC 

t^ lO Ci OJ O C5 

,-1 ^ CO -- rs 



c^ -r -^ t^ CJ X 



O O O QO O 



I - O ^ Ci CC I 
r-» CC (M t< T-t I 



.-1 ooooo 

c^rGPo'ocroo"'-^'"or 



i-i (M COCO^ 



CI -f »0 O; :0 CO 



o oo o o o 
o o o o o o 
O t~ 00 !0 1^ o 



« fr T^ S r; ! 



oooooo 
o o o o o o 
oooo o c 



CO ;0 (32 O :D CO 
CJ r-l t^ t* ^-( CO 
1-1 (N <M ■* iO t^ 



■r** O O .-H O ^ 



oooooo 

O O' O O O' o 

oooooo 



CI Ci t^ to CO t^ 

■^ ^ to »o o »o 



CO CD GC' Ci O CO 

T-1 ■-I T-l 1-1 (M (M 



C3 C3 c3 C3 C3 C3 



CI O X' O t^ CO 



oooooo 

OOOOOO 

oooooo 



t^ CO CO t^ n* o 
CO CD to r^ CD CO 
CO-ifcOt^OO 



O OG«0 O ^ ^ 
CI CI CI CO CO CO 



r^ t^ CO cz) ai rH 
;J t^ t-^ u tJ k^ 

<i o o o o CI 



C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 c! 






.t^-e 



■3 a3S a 5: eg 

P C3 "S .Q O !' 



CO CO CD 10 r^ -^ 

»-t CO to O OS »-t 



8881 



<Z> f-t t^ Oi Oi t^ 

r-, CO t^ CO a> --< 

^ (M CC »0 CD 00 



CO to t'- *-" .— I lO 



C Ol o o o c 



O O O O C' < 
O O w o o c 



o to r- C5 'O cz) 

rf> ix> t- :D OS -^ 
T-H C^ CO 10 I^- Oi 



-t O I^- rH coco 



oooooo 

oooooo 
00 o o o o o 



"^O-H Oi OC 



oooooo 
oooooo 
oooooo 

cT '^Go"or»o'o" 

^ 01 ^ CO O (>J 
I-* (M '^ 0I>0 



'^ WGOco coo 



T-H CO T-H l^ -^ CO 
CC »0 r-H 00 06 CO 



oooooo 
oooooo 
oooooo 



00 o 01 o 01 -^ 
'^ cc o o o I-- 

"^ lOO CO t- CO 



(^ C3 c3 apHp^ 



to CO t^ CD to 00 
CD CD to to to TJ^ 



oooooo 

oooooo 
oooooo 

cro^io^cTcrc^' 

to Oi CD t^ 00 ^ 
CI CO to t^ O CI 



CO Ci Oi 1-4 to r- 

T-l T-(l-l CI CA O 



O ^ CI CO 1^ o 
1-1 1-4 1-1 i-< rl C-1 

tH tJ ;>^ ;-4 ;>^ tH 

■4^ -f lo "4^ 4^ 10 

C-i (M (N (M Ol C-i 

i^ tZ tZ iS, iZ tZ 

ci ci d ^ d d 



■3 a> +^ H S^ 23 
.^ c3 c3 .a o .- 



3833°— wsp 334—13 6 



Cl 





■^ 


M 


ID 







n 




1 




fl 



U CO 



^.1 

C3- 

Ma 

O O 
MO 

22 

"a 

.2 -a 
CO ^ S 

'• ^ rt" 



82 



THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APKIL, 1913. 



Table 18 gives ratios of the drainage area and of total discharge 
during selected floods for each station as compared with each of the 
other stations in the table. The di'ainage area ratio is always less 
than unity because the value for the station having the smaller 
drainage area is always placed in the numerator. The ratios of 
total discharge are the fractional parts that the total flow at each 
station is of the total flow at each of the other stations. In general, 
these discharge ratios are always less than unity because the dis- 
charge for the station with the smaller drainage area is always placed 
in the numerator. The values of total flow used in computing 
these ratios are given in Tables 15 and 16. The ratios afford a 
rough check on the applicability and accuracy of the rating curves 
for the periods and the range of stage for which they were used. A 
very close agreement among such ratios can not be expected because 
of the variable factors involved, such as, for example, the intensity 
and distribution of rainfall. 



Table 18. — Ratios of total discharge during selected'floods at various points on Ohio River. 

Wheeling. 
[Drainage area, 24,800 square miles.] 





tation. 


Drainage 
area 
ratio. 




Flood of— 






1884 


1906-7 


1907 


1913 


Wheeling 












Parkersburg 


0.66 
.41 
.33 
.27 
.23 




0.68 
.45 
.37 
.28 
.24 


0.73 
.52 
.43 
.35 
.33 


65 


Catlettsburg 




.45 


Cincinnati , 


0.37 
.30 
.28 


33 




.23 


Evansville 


.21 


• 


Parkersburg. 

[Drainage area, 37,700 square miles.] 








Wheeling 


0.66 




0.68 


0.73 


0.65 


Parkersburg 






Catlettsburg 


.63 
.50 
.42 
.36 




.66 
.54 
.41 
.35 


.71 
.60 

.48 
.45 


.69 


Cincinnati 




.51 


Louisville . 




.36 






.32 








Catlettsburg. 
[Drainage area, 60,300 square miles.] 


Wheeling ... 


0.41 
.63 




0.45 
.66 


0.52 
.71 


0.45 


Parkersburg 




.69 


Catlettsburg 






Cincinnati 


.80 
.67 
.57 




.82 
.62 

.54 


.84 
.68 
.63 


.73 


Louisville 




.52 






.47 









COMPARISON OF TUE FJ^OODS IN THE OHIO VAl.LEV. 



83 



Table 18. — Ratios of loUd discharge during selected Jloods at various points on Ohio 

River — Ooutiiiued. 

Cincinnati. 

I DraiiiLifjo area, 75,800 square miles. I 





Station. 


Drainage 
area 
ratio. 


Flood of— 




1884 


190(5-7 


1907 


1913 


W heeliiii; 


0.33 
.50 
.80 


0.37 


0.37 

.54 

.82 


0.43 
.00 

.84 


0.33 




.51 


CalU'lIsliiirg . . 




.73 










.84 
.72 


.80 
. 75 


.76 


.81 


.71 


Evansville 


.64 







Louisville. 
[Drainage area, 90,600 square miles.] 



Wheeling 

Parkersburg. 
Catlettsburg. 
Cincinnati... 
LouisviUe . . . 
EvansviUe. . 



0.27 

.42 
.67 
.84 


0.30 


0.28 
.41 
.62 
.76 


0.35 

.48 
.68 
.81 




.80 


.85 


.94 


.87 


.94 



0.23 
.36 
.52 
.71 



Evansville. 

[Drainage area, 106,000 square miles.] 



Wheeling 


0.23 
.36 

.57 
.72 

.85 


0.28 


0.24 
.35 
.54 
.66 

.87 


0.33 
.45 
.63 
.75 
.94 


0.21 


Parkersbirrg 


.32 






.47 




. 75 
.94 


.64 




.89 


Evansville 

















The maximum daily discharges shown by these tables indicate the 
extremely large amounts of water that would have to be carried by the 
channels between proposed levees along the Ohio. For designing 
such levees flood-flow data should be collected in much greater 
detail. The number of days the water would have stood against 
the levees at various stages is also indicated by the tables. 

The figures in the columns headed "Excess" show the quantities of 
water to be held back above the stations during the periods indicated 
to have kept the river below danger line, at 4 feet above the danger 
line, and at 7 feet above danger line. For example (Table 15), 
to have kept the highest flood on record at Cincinnati (1884) below 
the danger Ime it would have been necessary to hold back, at the 
proper time, above Cmcinnati 226,000 million cubic feet of water — - 
the accumulated excess durmg the 19 days that the stage was 
above the danger Ime. This, however, is the maximum, and it 
should be noted that from 1859 to 1913 the excess was greater than 
140,000 million cubic feet on only two occasions. It should be further 
noted that no excess above 57 feet is as much as 140,000 million cubic 
feet, and that only two are greater than 100,000 million cubic feet. 



84 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

The total capacity of the 43 reservou" sites above Pittsburgh, investi- 
gated in 1912 by the Pittsburgh Flood Commission, is 80,500 million 
cubic feet, and the total capacity of 17 selected projects of the 43 
above Pittsburgh is 59,500 million cubic feet. Preliminary investi- 
gations during 1908 by the United States Geological Survey in the 
Kanawha River drainage area discovered 17 reservoir sites with a total 
storage capacity of about 280,000 million cubic feet. In addition to 
these there are many other available reservoir sites on the tributaries 
of Ohio River above Cincmnati. It is probable, however, that greater 
storage capacity than that indicated will be required to control fully 
the floods on the Ohio, for all the floods do not originate on the same 
tributaries, and sufficient reservoir capacity should therefore be 
provided to control floods on two or more combinations of tribu- 
taries. The data now at hand, however, are too meager to warrant 
conclusions. They simply show the necessity for complete investi- 
gations to determine how much storage is available on the various 
tributaries, what effect storage on certain tributaries and sets of 
tributaries would have on the flow m the main stream as well as on 
the tributaries, and whether or not, on the whole, such storage reser- 
voirs are feasible as a means of flood control in the Ohio Valley. 

The differences in the values of excess at the different stations for 
stages of danger hne, 4 feet above danger line, and 7 feet above 
danger line, show the advantages to be gained by raising the danger 
Une at different cities, either by building levees or by moving out of 
the sections subject to overflow. 

The hydrographs of gage heights (Pis. IV, V, X, XI, XIII) indicate 
to some extent the effect of the tributaries on the main stream and vice 
versa but are not to be compared in value for studies of the problems of 
flood control with similar hydrographs and data based upon discharge 
instead of upon gage heights. Thus at every turn the absolute neces- 
sity for data relative to stream flow becomes apparent. 

DAMAGE CAUSED BY FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 

Estimates of damage caused by the flood of March-April, 1913, 
in the Ohio Valley are given in Table 19. These estimates were pre- 
pared by the United States Geological Survey from information 
received in response to circular .letters sent to the officials of about 200 
cities and towns of about 5,000 population or over, from which about 
120 replies were received. These replies gave estimates of losses 
sustamed by the municipalities and some of the smaller towns in 
their immediate vicmity. The two largest single items received were 
from Dayton, Ohio, and Hamilton, Ohio, the total amounts being 
$100,000,000 and $15,000,000, respectively. Some of the most serious 
losses were only vaguely expressed. For example, it was reported 
that at Hamilton, Ohio, two-thirds of the town was covered by 



DAMAGE CATTSED BY FLOOD. 



wator and about 300 houses were swept away; aud that at Ports- 
mouth, Ohio, four-fifths of the city was inundated. Such esti- 
mates were not iuchuled in the tables from which the totals given 
in Table 19 were obtained. It will be readUy appreciated that 
accurate estimates of flood losses are, at best, dilFicult to obtain and 
can hardly be expected to result from the method that the Survey 
was forced to follow because of the lack of means to make a study at 
closer range. However, the esthnates given are believed to be reli- 
able so far as they go, and they should be of considerable value in 
showing the vast amount of money lost because of a single flood, 
thus givmg some idea of the amount of funds that it is wise and proper 
to expend m order to prevent the recurrence of such losses. 

Table 19. — Estimate of damages in Ohio Valley hy flood of March-April, 1913. 
[Total population, 14,400,000; drainage area, 203,000 square miles.] 





Towns 
wliioh re- 
ported. a 


Lives 
lost. 


Build- 
ings 
flooded. 


Bridges 

de- 
stroyed. 


Damages. 


Stats. 


Total. 


Municipal 
and county 
improve- 
ments.!) 




11 

47 

24 
1 

94 
7 
1 

21 


2 

39 
1 

307 
2 

4 


380 

15,450 

6,721 

200 

33,S33 

690 

100 

2,669 




.81,003,750 

15,4S0,143 

1, SSI, 500 

150,000 

(■143,197,492 

2,935,000 

50, 000 

3,477,500 


$7,250 
3,113,900 




-180 
6 
8 

-220 
4 
1 




130, 000 

10,000 

7, 296, 083 


New York 


Ohio 




22, 000 


Tennessee .... 




West Virginia 


82, 950 








Total 


206 


41. >; 


fin. M'^ 


419 


168,175,385 

12,221,071 

476,041 


10 662 183 


Total damage to railroads 






Total damase to traction lines 








Total (including railroads and traction lin 


es) 


180,873,097 













a Includes smaller towns reported by officials to whom requests for estimates were sent. 
6 Waterworks, sewers, roads, county bridges, street railways, etc. 
c Includes $150,000 for State canals in Ohio. 

The damage caused by the flood of March- April, 1913, was prob- 
ably the largest that has resulted from any one flood m the history 
of the Ohio VaUey. The damage as depicted in the public press at 
the time of the flood was not overdrawn, nor could it be, for the 
conditions at Dayton, Middletown, Hamilton, Piqua, Zanesville, and 
other interior towns and in cities along Ohio River were beyond 
description. While this was due primarily to the record-breaking 
stages reached by the rivers at so many places, the fact that the 
flood was most severe on streams that had hitherto been compara- 
tively free from extreme floods explains a considerable amount of the 
damage. In other words, the localities flooded the most were those 
that least expected, and were therefore least prepared to cope with 
the unprecedented stages. In its relief work in connection with this 
flood the Red Cross Society expended $2,343,601, and the expenditures 
from local relief funds amounted to about $600,000. These items are 
not included in Table 19. -___ ^ 



86 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAKCH-APRILy 1913. 

The estimate of railroad losses represents nine systems and the 
traction losses were compiled from information from 65 companies. 
The estimates given are for actual damage only and do not include 
even all of such losses. No estimates of economic losses are given, 
although some were received. The losses of revenue by the railroad 
and traction companies probably amounted to at least one-half or 
two-thirds of the actual losses and possibly more. A discussion of 
flood losses in general follows. That the actual losses resulting from 
the flood of March-April, 1913, will greatly exceed $200,000,000 
there seems to be little doubt. However, any estimate of the total 
amount of damage considering all phases would, especially at this 
time, be simply a guess. 

The damage caused by floods may be divided into two classes — 
actual and economic. Under "actual damage" are classed direct 
physical losses that are tangible and apparent, a portion of which 
may be measured in terms of the expenditure required to restore the 
thing damaged to approximately its condition before the flood; the 
rest may be measured in terms of the monetary value of the thing 
lost or destroyed. Plates XIV, XV, and XVI illustrate effects that 
may be classified under "actual damage." Under the classification 
"economic damage" are placed those indirect losses that are, in a 
sense, presumptive. These include losses due to suspension of busi- 
ness and social relations in the flooded area and in places having such 
relations with that area; losses due to decreased confidence in the 
security of the localities flooded — ^especially the towns and cities, 
which may be termed lost prestige; losses due to general depression 
and decreased initiative throughout the flooded districts; and losses 
due to a materially decreased property valuation. 

In addition to these losses, there is a loss of wild animal life of which 
it is practically unpossible to get any idea. 

Finally, the pitiful loss of human life is the most serious of all. 
Although a valuation is sometimes placed upon human life, it seems 
that any attempt to judge this loss in terms of money is entirely out 
of place here. In addition to the direct loss of life, there is the 
indirect loss due to ill health, sickness, and death resulting from the 
unsanitary and unhealthful conditions which follow all floods. 
Plate XVII gives two views at Hamilton, Ohio, showing localities 
where actual loss of life, animal and human, was narrowly averted. 

The damage by flood results directly from two things, simple 
inundation and the effects of the current. It is questionable which 
of the two causes the more damage. In simple inundation probably 
the most damage is caused by the yellow, slimy, fine, penetrating 
mud that is deposited everywhere. The effect of this mud in cities 
is almost inconceivable. There may be some gain in fertilization 
when it is deposited on farm land, but it is open to question whether 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER J14 PLATE XIV 




A. DURING THE FLOOD. 
Note the large amount of drift piled against the remaining span. 




B. AFTER THE FLOOD. 

The mass of iron work at the right is part of the Putnam Street bridge and was carried at least 500 feet by the 

current. 



RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER MUSKINGUM RIVER AT MARIETTA, OHIO, 

MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 33+ PLATE XV 




-m - jiMk 




A. FOURTH STREET AND BAPTIST CHURCH, MARIETTA, OHIO, MARCH 30, 1913. 




B. POST OFFICE, FRONT STREET, MARIETTA, OHIO, MARCH 30, 1913. 



This post office was supposed to have been built out of reach of any flood, but there was 8 feet of water in it 

March 30. 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVE 



ATEH-SUPPLY PAPER .I.M PlATE XVI 





HIGH STREET BRIDGE OVER MIAMI RIVER AT HAMILTON, OHIO, MARCH-APRIL, 1913 

^4, B, Before failure; 6', View from right bank below bridge, showing part of the remains of the bridge. The 
United States Geological Survey gage was located near this bridge. Measurements of discharge were made 
from tne bridge. 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334- PLATE XVM 




.1. RILEY'S ISLAND, MIAMI RIVER, BELOW HAMILTON, OHIO, MARCH 26, 1913. 

shows the crest of the flood. The arrow indicates a point fronn which four persons were rescued 
after 32 hours. 




B. HIGH STREET, HAMILTON, OHIO, DURING FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
The horse in this picture was blind but was rescued. 



U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 PLATE XVIII 




A. SOUTH B STREET, HAMILTON, OHIO, AFTER THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 
This view shoves the effects of the current upon a paved side street. 




j.1^%^ 



B. RAILROAD CRUbbING AT SOUTH HAMILTON, OHIO, AFTER THE FLOOD OF MARCH-APRIL, 1913. 



PREVRNTTON OK DAMACiK BY FLOODS. 87 

or not its value as a fortUizor outwoii^hs even the damage it does on 
the farm, to say iiotluno; of its elfect in cities and towns. Any con- 
sideration of this henofit to farm land appears simply an attempt to 
discover some small benefit in connection with the enormous loss. 

The effects of the current are noted principally in the sweeping 
away of bridges, houses, and other structures, in the tearing up of 
city streets, and the erosion of agricultural land — ^the top soil in 
many places being entirely washed away and nothing but a barren 
gravel bed left in the place of fertile land. Plate XVITI illustrates 
some of the effects of current in Hamilton, Ohio. (vSco also PI. XIV, 
B, and PI. XXII, B, p. 89.) 

In considering damage by flood, it should be borne in mind that 
damage resultmg from floods of a given and constant magnitude (for 
example) are ever increasmg because of increases in the value of the 
areas flooded and of their contents. 

Thus, with the added possibility of floods of greater magnitude than 
have ever occurred in the past, it would seem wise and proper that a 
generous interpretation should be placed upon the amount of money 
to be expended for purposes of flood control in the Ohio Valley. 

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY FLOODS. 

It is not the purpose of this report to attempt to make specific 
recommendations as to the means of flood prevention or to present 
arguments in favor of any one scheme as oj)posed to others, but the 
report would be incomplete without some reference to methods of 
preventing damage by floods and to the means that may be devised 
for flood control. A distinction is made between the prevention of 
floods and the prevention of damage by floods in order to bring out 
more forcibly the obvious idea that excessive precipitation^ — that is, 
the presence of excessively large volumes of surface waters in river 
basuis — can not be prevented by any means now known to man; 
the thing to strive for is to prevent the great damage done by flood 
water aU along its course. 

The two means of preventing damage by floods that have received 
the most attention and that are unquestionably the best and most 
reliable are levees and reservoirs. For fuU discussion and rational 
and conclusive consideration of either of these proposed means as 
applied to the Ohio Valley, data more coinplete than those at pres- 
ent available are necessary. It seems desirable, however, to point 
out some features concerning which there is much misunderstanding. 

Great weight has been given, for example, to the supposed com- 
paratively low cost of buUdmg earthen embankment levees. A more 
complete estimate of the cost of levees for the Ohio Valley, includmg 
damages, should be made before positive statements showing low cost 
of earthen embankments are published, and careful consideration 



88 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OP MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

should be given to the cost of levees of the type necessary around the 
many large cities along the Ohio and to costs of reconstruction. One 
item at one city v^ serve as an illustration. (See Pis. XIX and XX.) 
At Cmcinnati, Ohio, about 53 trxmk-line sewers enter the river. It 
is understood that in desigmng the improved and expensive sewer 
system now being built for that city no provision has been made to 
keep out the flood waters of Ohio River, the design having been 
based on past and present conditions of flood flow from the area 
drained by the sewers, and many of the outlets to the Ohio will 
be below the present high water stage of the river. The construc- 
tion of adequate levees would increase the flood stage and if water 
is to be kept from the city would involve either the rebuilding of the 
whole system below the increased flood stage or the construction of 
gates to prevent the entrance of river water into the sewers. The 
cost of such changes can be determined only by complete and un- 
biased investigation. It is conceivable that such an investigation 
would not show the levee scheme in the favorable light pictured by 
its advocates. A similarly complete and unbiased investigation of 
the cost of reservoirs should be made before they are either approved 
or condemned on the score of cost. 

It has been said that the failure of some of the levees on the lower 
Mississippi during the flood of 1912 is no valid argument against the 
buildmg of a properly constructed levee line. This is true, but the 
statement applies with equal force to properly constructed reservoirs 
for flood control. The fact that some defective or inadequate dams 
have failed should not be used as a bogey to scare everyone away from 
any consideration of control by reservoirs, any more than the failure 
of inadequate levees should be used for the same purpose with refer- 
ence to levees. Such an attitude, generally adopted, would stop 
most of the engmeering work of the country — nothmg would be built 
up because of the fear that it might topple down with disastrous 
consequences. 

In considering control by reservoirs the fact should be kept clearly 
in mind that their purpose is not to withhold all the flow during floods. 
The main purpose of river channels is to carry off the water. The 
idea in reservoir control, however, is to store enough water at the 
proper times to keep the floods below certam stages, that is, to take 
the top off the floods — to hold back that part of the natural flow that 
does the damage. If this fact be not kept clearly m mind a considera- 
tion of the enormous quantities involved is likely to be very mis- 
leading. 

The proper method of handling reservoirs in restraining floods in 
order that they may have the desired effect is a most important factor 
in the problem of control by reservoirs. This may readily be deter- 
mined by computation if the necessary data are available. Records 



u. 


S. l.tOLOGlCAL SUHVEY 










WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 334 


PLATE XXI 




^ 


B 


m 


^ 


H 


ll^^^lll^ 


^^ 






1 


iu^^H 


H 


1 


HPIHSI 


■ 






1 


^HHHI 


i^ 


■s^ 


^^ 








1 


I^^^EBw 










H|mp 


► .-^r.- 






1 


I^S^- 


-t 














^Ear^ias^ 











.■I. JUST BEFORE FAILURE. 




B. DURING FAILURE. 




('. IMMEDIATELY AFTER FAILURE. 



CINCINNATI, HAMILTON & DAYTON RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER MIAMI 
RIVER AT HAMILTON, OHIO, MARCH 25, 1913. 





2 2 
dp 



_i -^ 



? 5 «, 



PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY FLOODS. 89 

of discharge are of utmost importance in this connection. Tlie niucli 
discussed question as to whether or not the sources of (he waler tliat 
causes the floods on the Ohio lliver are susceptibh^ to control by rciscu'- 
voirs can be definitely answered oaly by a systematic determination 
of the discharge at numerous points on the tributary streams as well 
as on the Ohio. In like manner, computations of such features as the 
height of the proposed levees and the proper distance between them — 
that is, the necessary channel capacity to carry off the water — can be 
made only after a large amount of data have been collected, data 
concerning river discharge forming a most necessary part. 

Many of the conditions incident to the advance of civilization have 
been pointed out as the causes of damage by floods, and the conclusion 
has been drawn that a reversion to the origmal state of affairs would 
solve the problem of flood control. Deforestation has been most fully 
discussed in this respect. "Wh.atever the real effects of the forests on 
floods and the possibilities of favorably altering such effects may be, 
the benefits of reforestation, apart from the specific purpose of flood 
control, are so obvious that arguments against it would seem to have 
scarcely more than academic interest. Agricultural and municipal 
developments have come m for a large share of the blame for 
damage by floods. Such of these developments as are legitimate 
have come to stay, and it is idle to be concerned with their effects 
except to provide means of taking care of them. To encroachment 
on natural channels much of the damage by floods is ascribed, 
and here is undoubtedly one of the most fruitful sources of damage. 
For this condition the greed of man is largely to blame. This is 
evidenced by the procedure usuaUy followed m building bridges, 
the effort bemg made to build them at the least possible cost of con- 
struction and maintenance, to this end the length of spans being 
reduced to a minimum. This results in puttmg abutments farther 
and farther out into the stream, placing numerous piers in the chan- 
nel itself, and reducmg the total opening for the stream beyond all 
reasonable limits by constructing, as approaches, earthen embank- 
ments that act simply as dams in times of flood. The same greed or, 
perhaps, false economy is shown by buildmg factories, manufacturing 
plants, and even residences out to the limit of ordmary low stage and 
thus formmg the most effective barriers to the free flow of the streams 
when in flood. This greed is heavily punished by the first disastrous 
flood. Plates XXI and XXII, A, show the destruction of a railroad 
bridge at Hamilton. This is simply typical of many other bridges, 
municipal as weU as railroad. AU stream channels should be cleared 
of obstructions and made ample as carriers of flood waters, and rigid 
laws, strictly enforced, should prohibit any further encroachment on 
waterways. 



90 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

A noteworthy suggestion in connection with the reduction of dam- 
age by floods advocates the removal of places of business or residence 
from areas subject to repeated inundation, so as to restore to the 
river channel that which belongs to it. To accomplish this it has been 
further suggested that the cities take over the abandoned properties, 
paying an equitable price and making arrangements that will enable 
the occupants, especially the poor, to relocate out of harm's way. 
In this way the danger line at many cities could be raised and the 
volume of flood waters that would have to be taken care of materially 
reduced. In addition it has been suggested that such areas be con- 
verted by the cities into river-front parks, so that they will serve a 
useful purpose and still offer no obstruction to the flood flow of the 
river. This may seem a Utopian dream, but the idea contains much 
that is worthy of consideration. 

The United States Weather Bureau has done and is doing a most 
valuable work in issuing timely and accurate warnings of floods and 
forecasts of flood heights and their rate of progression. This service 
has saved almost inestimable loss in areas about to be flooded, not 
only of live stock and goods but also of human life. An extension 
of this service to cover the entire country would unquestionably 
result in a still greater saving of life and property. Those people 
who insist upon remaining or are forced by their circumstances to 
remain in areas subject to repeated floods should be more fully edu- 
cated to a proper appreciation of the value of flood warnings in order 
that they may more generally heed such warnings in time. 

Probably no system of river control will prove a panacea for all 
the ills incident to disastrous floods, and no combmation of systems 
can be expected to prevent all damage by extreme floods. In fact, 
one of the most important points to be decided is just how large a 
flood it is economical to provide against. The best solution may 
prove to be a combination of reservoirs and levees, the function of the 
reservoirs in extreme floods being, as pointed out above, to hold back 
the last straw that breaks the levee's back. 

That much can be done to aid in flood protection is recognized by 
all, but the extent to which levees and reservoirs would have been 
effective in the present flood can not be estimated with the informa- 
tion now available. 

Emphasis is laid on the importance of thoroughly considering the 
combined effect of all the factors on the floods which have taken 
place in the past. That any one of the proposed remedial works 
would not have been absolutely effective for a particular flood does 
not imply that its consideration should be eliminated. Further- 
more, the possibility that protective works would have afforded 
comparatively little assistance on the northern tributaries in Ohio 
during the present unprecedented flood need not necessarily con- 



CONCLUSION. 91 

demii all such works, as the savin^jj from iiiinicrous ordinary Hoods 
may warrant the necessary oxpendiliire to construct the desbed 
improvements. 

Whatever may be the merits of the respective schemes there can 
be no doubt of the absolute necessity for a comprehensive plan of 
action. To be effective any system of control must treat Ohio 
River and its tributaries as a unit, with due regard to the effect of 
such control of the Ohio on the Mississippi below Cairo. To make 
such a comprehensive system of control practicable, efficient, and 
successful, a central organization for the control of rivers is needed. 
Such a central organization would necessarily have to be Federal, 
but it could not be successful, in so far as the problem under imme- 
diate consideration is concerned, without broad-minded, hearty, 
and unselfish cooperation on the part of the States, counties, munic- 
ipalities, and private mterests thi'oughout the Ohio Valley. 

The value of the prevention of damage by floods can hardly be 
overestimated. It is not to be measured by considering only the 
value of actual damage by floods m the past. Not only must the 
loss of human life and animal life be considered, but also the increase 
in the value' of property and the enormously valuable increased con- 
fidence that would result from the assurance that flood protection up 
to a certam limit could be absolutely relied upon. This phase of 
the situation was illustrated in a timely manner by the campaign 
of advertismg followed by a certain city in the Ohio Valley during 
the recent flood, which guaranteed immunity from floods to indus- 
tries that could be prevailed upon to move to that city. The ability 
to make such a guaranty would be a most valuable asset to every 
city or community m the Ohio Valley now subject to damage by 

floods. 

CONCLUSION. 

Before any comprehensive study can be made of the various 
problems connected with floods m the Ohio River drainage basin, it 
will be necessary to have full information m regard to the quantity 
of water carried, not only by the Ohio itself, but also by the larger 
tributaries. The data must give complete information in regard to 
the distribution of this water, both as to drainage area and as to time. 
Therefore a long-time record is especiall}" essential, as the variations 
in flow from year to year are large. 

The fact that studies of the flood of 1913 will always be limited in 
scope, because of lack of sufficient data in regard to stream flow, not 
only during this flood but also during earlier floods that must be 
compared with the present, shows the importance of maintaining 
gaging stations on the principal streams in areas where important 
problems are to be solved, in order that the data may be available 
when needed. Stream-flow data, unlike data collected by surveys 



92 THE OHIO VALLEY FLOOD OF MAECH-APEIL, 1913. 

and other kinds of engineering work, can not be collected in a short 
time. Periods of floods and low water pass rapidly, and years may 
elapse before there is another opportunity to collect records m regard 
to such periods. It is to be sincerely hoped that the earnest recom- 
mendations made by all who have investigated and studied the present 
flood and the question of flood control will not meet the fate of pre- 
vious similar recommendations, such as those made after the flood 
of 1884, but that proper steps will at once be taken to obtain the data 
so much needed for the study and solution of the important problem 
of flood control. 



INDEX. 



A. Page. 

Accuracy of data, degree of 9 

Acknowledgments to those aiding 9 

Acre-foot, definition of 10 

Alderson, W. Va., flood heights at 18,26-27, uO 

Allegheny Kiver, flood heights on 17, 

2r)-27,3ti,37,19 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing... 2-1, 3-4 

Anderson, liid., flood rainfall at 20,31,11 

Asheville, N. C, flood heights at.... 28-29,37,38,51 

B. 

Bailey, C. T., work of 9 

BangorviUe, Ohio, flood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Batchelder, C. L., work of 10 

Beattyville, Ky., flood rainfall at 21,32,41 

Beaver Dam, Pa., flood heights at 17, 24, 25, 48 

flood heights at, hydrographs sho\ving.. 24,34 
Beaver Falls, Pa., flood heights at 26-27, 49 

flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 

Beaver River, flood heights on 26-27, 33-34, 49 

flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . . 24, 34 

Belington, W. Va., flood heights at 26-27, 49 

Bellefontaiue, Ohio, flood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Belpre, Ohio, flood at, view of 31 

Belva, W. Va., flood heights at 26-27, 50 

Beverly, Ohio, flood heights on.. 23,26-27,36,37,50 

flood heights on, hydrograph showing 24 

Big Sandy River, flood heights on IS, 

26-27,34,36,37,50 

flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . 24, 34 
Bolster, R. H., work of 9-10 

C. 

Cairo, 111., flood heights at 17, 

24,25,30,34-35,42-43 
flood heights at, hydrographs showing. 24, 34, 40 

flood rainfall at T 20, 32, 41 

Canal Dover, Ohio, flood heights at. 26-27,36,37,50 

Catlettsburg, Ky., flood discharge at 30, 

69, 78, SO-82 

flood discharge at, ratios of 82 

flood heights at 17, 25, 34-35, 48, 69 

hydrographs showing 24, 34 

Celina, Tenn., flood heights at 28-29, 37, 38, 51 

Channels, constriction of, by works of man, 

damage increased by 19, 89 

constriction of, views of 86 

Charleston, W . Va., flood heights at 18, 

26-27,34,36,37,50 

flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 

Chattanooga, Tenn., flood heights at 18, 

28-29,37,38,51 

flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

Cheat River, flood heights on... . 17, 26-27, 30, 37, 49 
Chester, 111., flood heights at, hydrograph 

showing 21 



Page. 

Chicago, 111., flood rainfall at 20,32,41 

ChUlicotho, Ohio, flood heights on 23, 20-27, 50 

Hood heights on, hydrograph showing. . . 24 

Cincinnati, Ohio, flood at , views of 88 

flood discharge at 30, 52-66, 73-76, 79-81, 83 

ratios of 83 

Hood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Hood heights at 14-17, 24, 25, 34-35, 48, 52-65 

hydrographs showing 24, 34, 40 

Circleville, Ohio, flood rainfall at 20,31,41 

Ciarksville, Tenn., flood heights at 18, 

28-29,34,37,38,51 

flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 

Clendenin, W. Va., flood heights at 26-27, 50 

Cleveland, Ohio, flood rainfall at 20,31,41 

Columbus, Ohio, flood heights at 18, 

23, 26-27, 36, 37, 50 

flood rainfall at 20,31,41 

Confluence, Pa., flood heights at. 17,26-27,36,37,49 
Creston, W . Va., flood heights at . . . 26-27, 36, 37, 50 

Crest stages, records of 14-16 

See also Gage heights; particular rivers and 
places. 

Cultiu-e, works of, effect of, on floods 19, 89 

Cumberland River, flood heights on 18, 

28-29,34,37,38,51 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing... 24,34 

D. 

Damage, character of 86-87 

prevention of 87-91 

See also particular floods. 

Data, accuracy of 9 

Dayton, Ohio, damage at 84,85 

damage at, view of 24 

flood at, view of 7 

flood heights at 18, 23, 26-27, 36, 38, 51 

flood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Definition of terms 10 

Deforestation, effects of, on floods 87 

Detroit, Mich., flood rainfall at 21,32,41 

Developments, cultural, effect of, on floods. . . 19, 89 
Dort, J. C, work of 9 

E. 

Elk River, flood heights on 26-27, 50 

EUet, Charles, on control of Ohio 7 

Elliston, Ind., flood heights at 28-29, SO 

flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

Enterprise, W. Va., flood heights at 26-27, 49 

Equivalents, convenient, list of 11-13 

Erie, Pa., flood rain fafl at 21 , 32, 41 

Evansvllle, Ind., flood discharge at 30, 

38, 72-73, 79-81, 83 

flood discharge at , ratios of 83 

flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

93 



94 



INDEX. 



EvaDsville, Ind., flood heights at 14-17, 

24, 25, 30, 34-35, 42-43, 48, 72-73 

hy drographs showing 24, 34, 40 

Excess water, amounts of 75-82, 83-84 

r. 

Fairmont, W. Va., flood heights at. .26-27, 36,37,49 

Falmouth, Ky . , flood heights at 18, 

26-27,34,36,37,50 

flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 

flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

Fayette, W. Va., flood heights at 18, 20-27, 50 

Fetterman, W. V., flood heights at 26-27, 49 

Flood areas, evacuation of 90 

Flood data, collection of 7-8 

Flood of 1859, discharge of 52-75 

stages of 52 

Flood of 1862, discharge of 52, 75 

stages of 52 

Flood of 1865, discharge of 53, 75 

stages of 53 

Flood of 1867, discharge of : 53, 75 

stages of 53 

Flood of 1870, discharge of 54, 75 

stages of 54 

Flood of 1875, discharge of 54, 75 

stages of : 54 

Flood o'f 1876, discharge of 55, 75 

stages of 55 

Flood of 1877, discharge of 55, 75 

stages of 55 

Flood of 1880, discharge of 55, 75 

stages of 55 

Flood of 1881, discharge of 55, 75 

stages of 55 

Flood of 1882, discharge of 56, 75 

stages of 56 

Flood of 1883, discharge of 56, 75 

stages of 56 

Flood of 1884, causes of 39, 44 

discharge of 43, 

48-51, 57, 66, 70, 74, 75, 78-80, 82-83 

history of ' 40-41 

hydrographs showing 40 

precipitation during 39-42 

map showing 36 

stages in 42-43, 48-51, 57, 66, 70, 72 

temperature during 39, 40 

Flood of 1886, discharge of 57, 75 

stages in 57 

Flood of 1887, discharge of 58, 75 

stages of 58 

Flood of 1890, discharge of 58, 75 

stages of 58 

Flood of 1891, discharge of 59, 75 

stages in 59 

Flood of 1893, discharge of 59, 75 

stages of 59 

Flood of 1897, discharge of 60, 75 

stages of 60 

Flood of 1898, discharge of 60, 75 

stages of 60 

Flood of 1899, discharge of 61, 75 

stages of 61 

Flood of 1901, discharge of 61, 75 

stages of 61 



Flood of 1902, discharge of 62, 76 

stages of 62 

Flood of 1903, discharge of 62, 76 

stages of 62 

Flood of 1900, discharge of 62, 76 

stages of 62 

Flood of 1906-7, discharge of 63, 

67-70, 72, 76, 78-80, 82-83 
stages of 63 

Flood of 1907, causes of 31, 33,44 

discharge during 39, 

48-51, 63, 67-69, 71, 73, 76, 78-79, 81, 82-83 

history of 33-34 

hydrographs showing 34 

precipitation and temperature before and 

during 31-32 

stages in 34-38,48-51,63,67-73 

Flood of 1908, dischargeof 63,76 

stages of 63 

Flood of 1909, dischargeof 64,76 

stages of 64 

Flood of 1910, discharge of 64, 76 

stages of 64 

Flood of 1912, discharge of 64, 76 

■stages of 64 

Flood of 1913, causes of 19, 43-44 

damage by 84^87 

views of 20, 24, 30, 86, 87, 88, 89 

discharge during 30, 48-51, 

65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 78-79, 81, 82-83 

history of 19-20, 44-45 

hydrographs showing 24 

origin of, place of 45 

precipitation dui-ing 20-23 

map showing 22 

progress of 23-24, 45 

stages in 23-30, 45, 48-51, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73 

temperature during 19, 20 

views of 20, 30, 31, 86, 88, 89 

Floods in Ohio River basin, causes of 13, 

19,31,33,39,43-44 

damage by, character of 86-87 

prevention of 87-91 

See also particular floods. 

discharge during 30, 39, 43 

heights of 14^18, 23-30, 34-38, 42-43, 45, 48-74 

prevalence of ."' 7 

seasons for 13 

warning of 90 

Florence, Ala., flood heights at.. 18,28-29,37,38,51 

Flov/. See Stream flow. 

Fort Wayne, Ind., flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

Frankfort, Ky., flood heights at 18, 

26-27,34,36,38,51 
flood heights at, hydrograph showing — 24 
flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

Franklin, Pa., flood heights at 26-27, 36, 37, 49 

Freeport, Pa., flood heights at. . . 17, 26-27, 36, 37, 49 
flood heights at; hydrograph showing 24 

French Broad River, flood heights on 28-29, 

33,38,51 
G. 

Gage heights, during floods, records of 17 

See also particular rivers and places. 

Gaging stations, importance of 91-92 

Gannett, Henry, work of 10 



INDEX. 



95 



rage. 

(iauloy Kiver, (UkkI lieighls on 20-27,50 

(Jreeiihrier Hivor, Hood heights on 18,26-27,50 

(ireen Kiver, IUkhI hoiRhtson. IS, 20-27, 34. 36, 38, 51 

Hood heiRhtson, hydrographs showing.. . 24,34 

(ireeJisboro, I'a, flood lieigh(s at. 17,20-27, 36,37, 4"J 

ir. 

Hamilton, Ohio, bridge at, destruction of, . 

view of SS, S9 

flood at and near, views of... 30,86,87,88,89 

flood damage at 84-85 

view of 30, 86, 87, 88, 89 

Hood heights at IS, 23, 26-27, 36,^38, 51 

hydrographs showing 24 

Harrisburg, Pa. , flood rainfall at 21, 32, 47 

Ilighbridge, Ky., flood heights at IS, 

20-27,36,38,51 

Hinlon, W. \'a., flood heights at 18, 26-27, 50 

Horton, A. H., work of 9-10 

Hoyt, J. C, work of 10 

Hoyt, W. G., work of 9 

Huntington, W. Va., flood heights at 17, 

25,34-35,48 
flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 

I. 

nUnois, flood damage in 85 

Indiana, flood damage in 85 

Indianapolis, Lnd., flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

J. 

Jackson, H. J., work of 9-10 

JohnsonviUe, Tenn., flood heights at 18, 

28-29,34,37,38,51 
flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 



Kanawha Falls, W. Va., flood heights at 18, 

26-27,36,37,50, 

Kanawha River, flood heights on 18-, 

26-27,34,36,37,50 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing.. 24,34 

Kentucky, flood damage in 85 

Kentucky River, flood heights on 18, 

26-27,34,36,38,51 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing.. 24,34 

Kiskiminitas River, flood on 33 

Knoxv me, Term., flood heights at. 18,28-29,37, 38, 51 
flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

L. 

La Salle, lU., flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

Leighton, M. O., on control of Ohio 7 

Levees, eflicacy of 83, 87-88, 90-91 

Lexington, Ky., flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

Licking River, flood heights on 18, 

26-27,34,36,37,50 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . . 24 

Life, loss of SO 

Little Kanawha River, flood heights on 17, 

26-27, 36, 37, 50 
flood heights on, hydrographs showiag.. 24,34 

Louisa, Ky., flood heights at 18, 

26-27,34,36,37,50 
flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 



I'ago. 
Louisville, Ky., flood discharge at 30, 

38,70-71,79-81,83 

flood dLsclmrge at, ratios of 83 

flood heightsat 17,24,25,40,12^3,48,70-71 

by drograi ibs show tng 24, 34, 40 

Hood ra irifall at 21, 32, 41 

M. 

Madison, lnd. , flood ramfall at 20, 32, 41 

Mahoning River, Hood heights on 20-27, 50 

Maps showing rainfall 22, 30 

Marietta, Ohio, Hood at, views of 20, 86 

flood heights at 14-17, 42-43, 48 

hydrograph showing 40 

Marion, Ohio, Hood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Maysvillc, Ky., flood heights at 17,25,34-35,48 

Hood heightsat, hydrographs showing... 24,34 

flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

Miami River, Hood heights on. . . 18, 20-27, 36, 38, 51 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . . 24, 34 

flood on 19,-2:3, 33-34 

Middletowm, Ohio, Hood damage at So 

Mississippi River, flood on, in conjmiction 

with Ohio River flood, effect of.. 47 

flood heights on, hydrograph showing 24 

Mohican River, flood heights on 26-27, 50 

Monk, P. S., work of 9 

Monongahela River, flood heights on 17, 

26-27,36,37,49 

Hood heights on, hydrograph showing 24 

Monongahela River, West Fork, flood heights 

on 20-27, 49 

Morgantown, W. Va. , flood heights at 17, 49 

Mount Carmel, 111., Hood heights at 18, 

20-27,36,38,51 

flood heights at, hydrograph showing 24 

Mount Vernon, lnd., flood heights at 17, 

24,25,34-35,48 
flood heights at, hydrographs showing. . . 24,34 

Muskingum River, flood heights on 17, 

26-27,36,37,50 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . . 24, 34 

flood on 23,24,33-34 

views of 86 

N. 

NashviUe, Tenn., flood heights at 18, 

28-29,37,38,51 

flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

New Hinton, W. Va., flood heights at 30, 37 

New River, flood heights on 18, 20-27 

New York, flood damage in 85 

Notre Dame, lnd., flood rainfall at 20, 41 

O. 

Ohio, flood damage in 85 

Ohio River, control of 7, 87-91 

flood heights on 14-17 

hydrographs showing 24, 34 

floods on. Sec Floods; particular floods. 

tributaries of, effects of 45-46, 84 

See also particular tributaries. 
O'Neill, W. N., workof 9 

P. 

Padgett, H. D., workof 10 

Padueah, Ky., flood heights at 14-17, 

24, 25, 30, 34-35, 42-43, 48 



96 



INDEX. 



^ 



Paducah, Ky., flood heights at, hydrographs 

shovdng 24,40 

Paoli, Ind., flood rainfall at 32 

Parkersburg, W. Va., flood at, views of 7,20 

flood discharge at 68,78,80-82 

flood discharge at, ratios of 82 

flood heights at. 17, 25, 34-35, 42, 48, 68 

hydrographs showing 24, 34 

flood rainfall at 21, 32, 41 

Pennsylvania, flood damage in ... f 85 

Peoria, 111., flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

Piqua, Ohio, flood damage at 85 

Pittsburgh, Pa., flood rainfall at 21,32,41 

flood heights at 14-17, 

24 , 25, 31, 33, 34-35, 40, 42-43, 44, 48 

hydrogi-aphs showing 24, 34, 40 

Pittsburgh Flood Commission, report of.. 34,42,84 

. Point Pleasant, W. Va., flood heights at 17, 

25,34-35,48 
flood heights at, hydrographs showing. . . 24, 34 

Pomerene, Ohio, flood heights at 26-27, 50 

Portsmouth, Ohio, flood damage at : . . . 85 

flood heights at 17, 25, 34-35, 48 

hydrographs showing 24, 34 

Precipitation in flood time, map showing 22, 36 

tables of 20-21,31-32,41 

See also particular floods and places. 

R. 

Radford, Va. , flood heights at 18, 26-27, 50 

Railroads, flood losses of 86 

Rainfall, floods due to 13, 19 

See also Precipitation. 
Red Cross, expenditure of, in flood of 1913 ... 85 
Redhouse, N. Y., flood heights at... 26-27,36,37,49 
Reservoirs, capacity of 84 

effect of tributaries serving as 46, 84 

reduction of flood stage by 34, 

42,84,88-89,90-91 

required capacity of 83-84 

Rowlesburg, W. Va., flood heights at 26-27, 

36,37,49 
Run-ofl, definition of 10 

relation of, to second-foot 11-12 



St. Louis, Mo., flood rainfall at 21,32,41 

Sandusky, Ohio, flood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Scioto River, flood heights on 18, 

26-27,33-34,36-37,50 

flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . . 24, 34 

Scope of report 8-9 

Second-foot, definition of 10 

relation of, to run-off 11-12 



Shoals, Ind., flood heights at 28-29, 51 

flood rainfall at 20, 41 

South Bend, Ind., flood lainfall at 31 

Springfield, 111., flood rainfall at 20, 32, 41 

Stevens, G. C, work of lo 

Storage in tributaries, effect of 46, 84 

Storms, direction of, effect of, on floods 46 

floods caused by. See Precipitation. 
Stream flow, records of, collection of 8-9 



Temperature in flood time, effects of 19-20, 

32,39,40 

Tennessee, flood damage in 85 

Tennessee River, flood heights on 18, 

28-29,34,37,38,51 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing. . 24,34 

Terms used, definition of 10 

Torre Haute, Ind., flood heights at 18, 

26-27,36,38,51 

flood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Toledo, flood rainfall at 20, 31, 41 

Tributaries, flood storage in 46 

Tuscarawas River, flood heights on. 26-27,36,37,50 
Tygart River, flood heights on 26-27, 49 

W. 

Wabash River, flood heights on . 18, 26-27, 36, 38, 51 
flood heights on, hydrographs showing . . 24, 34 

flood on 24, 33-34 

Walters, M. I., work of 10 

Warren, Pa., flood heights at 17,26-27,36,37 

Washington, Ind., flood rainfall at 32 

West Newton, Pa., flood heights at 17, 

26-27,36,37,49 

West Virginia, flood damage in 85 

Wheeling, W. Va., flood at, views of 30 

flood discharge at 30, 39, 66-67, 78, 80-82 

ratio of 82 

flood heights at 14-17, 

24, 25, 34-35, 41, 42-43, 44, 48, 66-67 

hydrographs showing 24, 34, 40 

White River, flood heights on 28-29, 51 

Wood, Mrs. B. D., work of 10 

Work, subdivision of 9-10 



Youghiogheny River, flood heights on 17, 

26-27,33,36,37,49 
Youngstown, Ohio, flood heights it 26-27, 50 



Zanesville, Ohio, flood damage in 85 

flood heights at 17, 23, 26-27, 36, 37, 60 



o 



LRBJa'14 



nv^^nnia 



